Talk:Annonaceae

Chemical Properties
Since the user "Peter coxhead" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annonaceae&diff=568915962&oldid=568859327 and  "Dominus Vobisdu"  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annonaceae&diff=568857559&oldid=568855389 repeatedly remove the following information on chemical properties, i past it here and ask other editors if their claim "WP:MEDRS – need reliable secondary reviews" is valid. TO my understanding the 4 science studies represent major publishing journals for the science at hand. Pharmaceutical research has found antifungal, bacteriostatic, antimalarial, and especially cytostatic capability of some chemical constituents of the leaves and bark. A large number of chemical compounds, including flavonoids, alkaloids, and acetogenins, have been extracted from the seeds and many other parts of these plants. Flavonoids and alkaloids contained in the leaves and bark of several species of the family have shown insecticidal properties. Prokaryotes (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS is clear that for medical claims individual primary sources, like articles in medical journals, are reliable only if they amplify what has been established by secondary sources, such as reviews. The key is not to make any medical claims without such sources.
 * "A large number of chemical compounds, including flavonoids, alkaloids, and acetogenins, have been extracted from the seeds and many other parts of these plants." – no problem; highly relevant
 * "Flavonoids and alkaloids contained in the leaves and bark of several species of the family have shown insecticidal properties." – should be ok in my view; not a medical claim
 * "Pharmaceutical research has found antifungal, bacteriostatic, antimalarial, and especially cytostatic capability of some chemical constituents of the leaves and bark." – this makes medical claims, and so needs to be supported by one or more reliable secondary sources, not primary journal articles. (The "especially" is not really encyclopaedic either – (e)special to whom?)
 * An additional problem is that the citations are wrong in several cases: they give "PubMed" as the journal, when it's not.
 * However, I'm not an expert in this area of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, so you could ask at WT:MED for more definitive advice. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19326329 is from PubMed, a source which listed reliable journals - according to the policy of WP:MEDRS "The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals" (this subset of the medical literature can be searched in PubMed using a 'journal categories' filter).[7][8] Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library[9] (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality). Core general medical journals include the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Core basic science and biology journals include Science, Cell, and Nature." Prokaryotes (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Annonaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613202624/http://idw.tu-clausthal.de/pages/de/news207375 to http://idw.tu-clausthal.de/pages/de/news207375
 * Added tag to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?66

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Annonaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113150056/http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl:80/taskforcemolecular/annonaceae.htm to http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl/taskforcemolecular/annonaceae.htm#Molecular%20Systematics%20of%20Annonaceae
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113150056/http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl:80/taskforcemolecular/annonaceae.htm to http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl/taskforcemolecular/annonaceae.htm#Phylogeny%20and%20evolution%20of%20Guatteria
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113150056/http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl:80/taskforcemolecular/annonaceae.htm to http://www.nationaalherbarium.nl/taskforcemolecular/annonaceae.htm#Phylogeny%20of%20Miliusa%20and%20allied%20Asian%20Annonaceae%20using%20cpDNA%20and%20morphology
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720053635/http://www.icuc-iwmi.org/files/News/Resources/Factsheets/annona.pdf to http://www.icuc-iwmi.org/files/News/Resources/Factsheets/annona.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)