Talk:Prostasomes

Unencyclopedic material

@Realpublish: Readers come to Wikipedia to learn about a subject, not the history of research about a subject. A history section may be appropriate, but should be restricted to especially notable achievements like the original discovery, Nobel Prizes, etc. As it stands, the content of the excessively long table is meaningless to the average reader. Several of the entries in the table talk about "investigations" and nothing about the conclusions of these "investigations". This is completely worthless. Who cares if an article was published in Biochim Biophys Acta or a symposium was held at the Wenner-Gren Centre? Finally most of the citation in the list are primary. Per WP:PSTS, secondary sources (review articles) should be used wherever possible. The purpose of this is two fold. First, an astonishingly high percentage of research cannot be repeated (see Replication crisis). Second, if someone else reviews the research, it helps establish the notability of the research. Boghog (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)