Talk:Thrombopoietin

Untitled

This page needs a lot of help. There's tons of information out there, but it just needs to be compiled. --Watermaren 20:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"A lot of help"? You probably just mean expansion. You seem to know more about this, so be bold and hack away. Just don't forget to WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 22:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Review

doi:10.1111/bjh.12772 - "Thrombopoietin from beginning to end" JFW | T@lk 16:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Major problems

• Nine references,one 3 years old, the rest 7 or more years old. Most of the article is unreferenced.
• Twenty "Further Reading" entries of random highly technical articles, the most recent nine years ago; the majority over 18 years old.
• Several incorrect unreferenced statements.
• External link is to an undated non-peer reviewed e-journal

Suggest all of the above be deleted.

Page should probably be shut down until updated.

IiKkEe (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly this article can be improved, however I don't think it is so bad that it requires WP:BLOWITUP treatment. Also please keep in mind {{sofixit}}.

Please note that the scope of this article is wider than WP:MED and in fact probably falls more within the WP:MCB project. As long as medical claims are not being made, then WP:SCIRS instead of WP:MEDRS applies.

The intention of the further reading sections in bot generated Gene Wiki articles is to provide notability and encourage human editors to expand these articles by providing background references some of which would hopefully be moved in-line. The closest relevant guideline is this:

Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited.
— Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections

Boghog (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The further reading citations have now been replaced with relevant recent reviews. Boghog (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)