Talk:Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta

References

The current format of references occupy too much of space which looks so unproportional to article content. Any opinion on this? Docku (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It definitely looks better after removing the Further Reading section. Docku (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the further reading section as many of the critical citations are already included in-line. This cuts down the length of the references considerably. The advantages using the {{cite journal}} template produced using User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool is that they are easy to generate, look clean, professional, and provide a consistent format. This way of generating citations also provides links to PubMed, the article on the publishers web site using the preferred DOI, and links to free pdfs on PubMed Central if available. In addition, there is at least one Bot, User:DOI bot, that performs automatic maintenance of citations that are in this format. Finally according to WP:CITE#HOW:

You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style or system used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

One thing we could do to reduce the length of the reference list further is to use et al. Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt find the doi of the reference I just included. Could it be that it doesnt have one? Docku (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Diberri's template filling tool uses PubMed to obtain citation information. If PubMed has not stored the DOI, then the template filling tool will not return the DOI. I found this particular DOI using User:DOI_bot. Please note this will only work if there is no DOI record present in the citation (I had to manually delete the empty DOI record before running the bot). Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Docku (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)