Talk:RTS,S
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RTS,S article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | A news item involving RTS,S was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 October 2021. |  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about RTS,S.
|
Another article on the same topic
editAdditional information can be merged in from Recombinant malaria vaccine, which covers the same topic as this article. I turned that page into a WP:REDIRECT. This is the last version that contained real content. Merge in anything useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- The creator of that article is the subject of a contributor copyright investigation, please do not merge any content from that article without checking it for copyright violations first. January (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
"By whom? "
edit"by whom?" is it not obvious that the first vaccine for a terrible disease, the first vaccine for a parasitic disease mind you, is an amazing milestone? I say that's an enormous step forward for world medicine and science alike! Can we not be excited for such things or are we really gonna need to cite a hundred different scientists saying the same only for the sources' urls to go dead in a couple of years like 80% of the sources cited by articles on this prestigious platform? 2001:1970:529B:E700:5CFB:7EC4:87B0:CE46 (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
the first malaria vaccine candidate
editThe term candidate is confusing. Is it still a candidate if it is being used? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- It appears that the term "candidate" is used for potential vaccines. I found a definition that seemed to help defined the term. It is defined as "either as the first of its kind based on the mechanism of protection or as the first vaccine for a disease" )see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4944327/. Given this definition, it appears to be used properly in this article. Jurisdicta
- Thanks. It is still a bit counterintuitive to me - a candidate drug or treatment is one that is not yet used on humans, outside testing/trials, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
the lead paragraph is too long Comment Suggestion
editI plan to move most of the text from the lead paragraphs into the body of the article. Please discuss. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Lead should be a summary and should not contain new information, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)