Talk:Ambroxide

Needs work
Much of this article is good, but quite a lot is either factually incorrect, misleading or opinion and a big chunk of it is perfectly true but not in the least relevant to the subject.

I'm starting this talk page in the hope that the existing authors will work with me to sort it out: there is the basis here for a really good article and someone with some level of expertise has obviously contributed quite a lot of effort to it already.Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

After a little investigation, it turns out that almost the entire article is a straight lift from this document published in 2003: the whole introduction and virtually all the references have been copied word for word and mistake for mistake, which explains why so much of it, while correct, is irrelevant - it was relevant in the context of the originating article. I suspect that this lift is, besides bringing with it some errors is also in breach of the original author's copyright. Accordingly I'm going to give it a radical overhaul--Chris J M Bartlett (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)