Talk:Ergothioneine

Wikipedia guidelines to follow
Relevant to the list of these specialized publications is this key guideline for contributing to Wikipedia:
 * WP:SECONDARY. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources .." translation: Citations are preferred to reviews and books.  It's the Wikipedia way.  Tens of thousands of publications appear annually in technical journals.  Wikipedia has no pretense of cataloguing these things. The goal is to base articles on general sources of digested (re-reviewed) content. If one wants to write a specialized review, contribute to a real technical journal.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Darrencut: For physiological or anti-disease evidence (applies to the supposed antioxidant role), WP:MEDRS requires: "Ideal sources for such content include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." The references you cited above do not meet these sourcing qualities. It is scientifically premature to conclude they have any in vivo relevance. --Zefr (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)