Talk:Qubit fluorometer

Talk
as a scientist who actually uses the qubit, I dispute the advert flag; it is actually a pretty good article The qubit has gained wide acceptance in the DNA community; many people (personal communications) have abandonded other methods (eg, nano drop UV) for the qubit and i am not a life fanboy; they just got this product right

Reply: While there's nothing in the article that seems plainly untrue, I still has significant problems with the tone of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.91.19.123 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability
Advert tags looks valid to me, in fact the sourcing is weak at a glance - none of them about the topic, presumably only mentions. Notability tag added. Widefox ; talk 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability II and subsections
As a scientist who actually uses the Qubit fluorometer, I agree on the advert flag despite (or even more) the relevance of this device in the scientific community. As a first starting point for further revisions, I cut the article into preliminary subsections, removed the numerous redundant statements about the device, linked it within wikipedia and hope to gain an objective article soon. Bathyscapher (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Qubit fluorometer. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110713071611/http://wetlab.izzid.com/2008/Feb/Review_of_Qubit/ to http://wetlab.izzid.com/2008/Feb/Review_of_Qubit/

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) 18:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)