Talk:Neuroangiogenesis

Use of PhD thesis as a reference
Hi there, thanks for your edits on this, the article was created as a result of a Wiki in the classroom exercise at the University of Edinburgh, first of hopefully more. With ref to the removal of the PhD thesis as reference - just looking at WP:Scholarship and wonder if there is an argument for keeping the ref in this case, it's a PhD thesis so has been through viva? Agree that theses should be used sparingly/carefully, of course. Thoughts? Could the sentence be modified to indicated that "some research suggests.." for example? (Hopefully going to be doing some more work with academic institutions through my GLAMWiki work with Museums Galleries Scotland, so if you've got links to any other resources/discussions would be glad to be pointed in that direction...) :) Lirazelf (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Lirazelf. Thanks to you and your UE colleagues for starting this article, and for the excellent work represented in the PhD thesis. The link to the thesis and abstract present complex content which is a hard read even for a retired physiologist like me, let alone a typical encyclopedia user like a high school biology student, i.e., WP:NOTJOURNAL. As one person's view of science (even if collaborative with the supervisor and thesis committee), a thesis really doesn't qualify for WP:SECONDARY. Would a general review of CNS angiogenesis like this be suitable? I'll continue to watch and contribute generally, but am not likely to add details, as this is outside my expertise. All Best. --Zefr (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, my misunderstanding concerning WP:NOTJOURNAL. Thanks for that!  I shall suggest the review to the researcher who worked on that section.  Many thanks ! Lirazelf (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)