Talk:Fish oil

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msw258.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please reinstate my edits
Come on, Wikipedia, don't be so overprotective. There's nothing wrong with my edit. Just adding a recent relevant review. It may be "inconclusive" but better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.206.126 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the authors themselves said the findings were inconclusive, and the article was published in a weak journal with a low impact factor. It is an unusable source. For Wikipedia, strong, hgh-quality reviews are needed for medical content, WP:MEDREV. --Zefr (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but there's not a single occurrence of "inconclusive" either in the abstract or in full text. Quite the opposite, the abstract concludes with "Clearly they have some therapeutic potential but further work is needed" - that "clearly" does not sound very inconclusive to me. And in WP:MEDREV I see no whitelist of high-impact journals nor a cut-off value, can you show where you looked up the impact factor of 'World J Clin Cases'? WP:MEDREV even suggests that depending on availability of full text, "the editor may need to settle for using a lower-impact source", i.e. that low impact is not an absolute taboo but just one of the factors. Here, the full text is available, and the reference covers a common disease which was not covered in the article before; even if it is inconclusive, it is still relevant and useful to have it mentioned. I still think your revert was unfounded. 71.7.206.126 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All the studies discussed in the WJCC article were inconclusive, preliminary reports based on subject numbers less than 50 each. That is not encyclopedic information. One can google the journal title with "impact factor 2018" to see a IF less than 2, which is a poor score, making it unreliable. Further, WJCC is not Medline-indexed, shown here, also disqualifying it as an untrusted source for Wikipedia. --Zefr (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Article overly focused on "health supplement" aspect
Fish oil was made industrially and used for centuries, before the recent craze about omega-3 etc. Yet he article has not a single word about that history. It seems to have been written largely by makers and sellers of "health supplements". And I was looking for information about its composition -- namely, whether consists of triglycerides, or some other type of compound (like spermaceti). No such luck. Lots of "omega-3" stuff though. It even fails to mention that it is a form of fat. Perhaps because that might be "bad for business"?--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Forms Section
I think that this should be removed. It's confusing and not relevant.

Drsruli (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)