Talk:Tomotherapy

This contains useful information as well
Sure, the language could be more neutral and less optimistic about this new treatment option. (Anybody around who has time to work on that?) Still I believe it's a great benefit of Wikipedia to contain information on relatively new developments in different fields. This is one, and people scanning through Wikipedia searching information on this particular subject will prefer to find it here instead of relying on sources found somewhere on Google which probably are far more dubious.--Oltsw (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an advertisement
The language speaks for its self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.250.152 (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation collection
Have a reference, but no time to integrate it into the article? Add it here! (With a link, if you can.) Have some time to help the article? Here are some possible references to read and use to flesh out the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * TomoTherapy's Selected Publications list is a good starting point. Obviously TomoTherapy is only going to list articles positive about TomoTherapy, but most (all?) of the citations are to respected, peer reviewed scientific journals and should be reliable sources of the highest quality.  Just in case TomoTherapy removes the page, here is 2008-11-09 archive. (Full disclosure: I have a vested interest in the success of TomoTherapy, and thus a potential conflict of interest in this article.  I believe pointing to potential sources is safely within the WP:COI guidelines. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC))

This article should be titled "Tomotherapy" (only one capital T). The article is not about the company, at least ostensibly. 156.77.108.70 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
TomoTherapy → Tomotherapy — We're not promoting a company here, so let's drop the camel case. — JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

This is STILL an advertisement
This article provides very little useful information. It is very obvious from the language used that this article has been written by the company. Please delete this article or radically shorten it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.32.128 (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Emergence of Tomotherapy Section Comment
The emergence of tomotherapy section that has been recently added seems to have a number of problems to me. It largely repeats other sections of the article (covering more of the history and general principles) while also seems to be written in a very un-encyclopaedic style ("Eating pizza between seeing patients, the duo brainstormed about a new approach to radiation therapy") and is almost completely uncited (while making very sweeping statements). I personally feel it should probably be removed entirely. -Therealmorris (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging here, in case they haven't seen the discussion. It would probably be a good idea to discuss such a large edit on talk and work out the kinks first. I've followed the article and can help any way I can.  Timothy Joseph Wood  12:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Questionable article quality
What is going on with this article? The positioning of citations and constant extremely corporate/advertisement-like phrasing makes it near incomprehensible. Each paragraph introduces hyper-specific acronyms as advantages of the technology/product with barely any objective elaboration.

"The TomoTherapy platform is capable of delivering radiation therapy helically also known as TomoHelical and at fixed-angles also known as TomoDirect." how does noting the (trademarked!) names of specialized techniques the machine can perform benefit the article? Why is that information showcased in lead? The second and third paragraphs in lead as a whole do not read as introductory to a topic, but rather advantages of a product over other related products.

Does anyone else find this article barely informative at all? How could cleanup begin for an entirely ad-like article? Overmyporcelain (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A lot of this looks to have happened at the start of the year. The article was by no means perfect before but I've made the bold move of restoring it. A very similar thing happened to Cyberknife (device), both Accuray related and adding corporate photos... Beevil (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact two articles regarding the same company's products got edited in this way around the same time is highly suspicious. It looks like the two accounts involved haven't edited much else after the fact... The revisions you performed instantly helped! Overmyporcelain (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is barely intelligible.  G M G  talk  12:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)