Talk:Colors of biotechnology

comments
I was asked here to comment on this article.


 * This expands on the content here: Biotechnology. I don't think this content is stand-alone article worthy, and you should just improve the existing content.
 * Please use in-line citations.
 * Please provide full citations. (Note on this below, that will also help with the bullet above)
 * Specific sources:
 * Rainbow code of biotechnology in Chemik is ... OK.
 * I tracked down the Chemical Engineering "True Colours" article and it is really fluff. It wasn't worth the time it took me to find it. Please don't use it.
 * The Egyptian conference reference brings no value - please don't use it.
 * The The Colours of Biotechnology: Science, Development and Humankind is an editorial and kind of a puff piece for biotech. no real value here. (and the purple one is not commonly discussed and isn't really helpful - IP rights existed long before the biotech industry, which has no special claim on them)
 * the centrionline ref says little. brings no value.
 * the white biotech article is at least more depth on that. one like that each of the main colors (red, green, blue) would be great.


 * Sourcing

So instead of this: Aldridge, S. (2009). The four colours of biotechnology: the biotechnology sector is occasionally described as a rainbow, with each sub sector having its own colour. But what do the different colours of biotechnology have to offer the pharmaceutical industry?. Pharmaceutical Technology Europe, (1). 12.

This is much better.

Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.
 * Note on formatting citations

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
 * (ref) (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most for medical or biotech articles...

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open --  you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom,  and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):
 * (ref) (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID

There you go. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * this tightened things up nicely, but you need to provide inline citations as I mentioned above. This content will not "stick" without inline citations.  Once those are there, people will go look at the citation and see if it supports the content it is adjacent to, and if it does not, the content will be removed.  Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)