Talk:Vibratome

Old talk
I feel like this article has been written in a slightly biased way, in favour of compressotomes and against the Leica brand of vibratomes.

Agreed. This article is clearly biased, and appears to have been written by the compresstome marketing team, and should be deleted or written in a more balanced manner. Both instruments certainly have advantages and disadvantages, and one may even be better but this is just marketing. 2601:4B:400:3260:9DBA:7695:4D0F:82D6 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I added the "content that is written like an advertisement" flag to the article. It seems like there is no reason for any of the manufactures to have a section on their own instrument. I would suggest removing all three. Waughd (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this one? It appears that three manufactures have written their own sections. Waughd (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the 3 paragraphs on specific models of vibratomes. Waughd (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What may have been overlooked is that there is no generic 'vibratome' word. 'Vibratome', the word, is a registered US trademark of Leica applied to their own instrument which is commonly known as a vibrating microtome, much like Hoover to a vacuum cleaner or Xerox to a photocopier. Therefore, there are, in effect, no other models of vibratome other than the Leica vibratome (although there are other models of vibrating microtome). Therefore, this would seem to be a straight advertising feature for Leica promoting their trademarked word, including a picture of a Leica vibrating microtome (labelled as vibratome). Is this allowed or does it not matter? 81.146.14.21 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300
— Assignment last updated by Xiang Li(Gary) (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)