User talk:Doc James/Archive 125

"Lifetime prevalence" vs. "at some point"
Regarding this edit on the PTSD article, I had changed "9% at some point" to "Lifetime prevalence for adults is 8.7%" because I do not understand what the phrase "at some point" means. Specifically, does it refer to incidence or prevalence? - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  10:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At some point in time is the same as lifetime prevalence. We can link the term. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of seeming picayune, I still think we should use "prevalence" up front (and linked), because 1) most readers will not know what "at some point" refers to (yes, they can click the link, but I think we should use precise terminology up front whenever possible); and 2) prevalence refers to a specific point in time (unless one uses one of the three more specific forms of the term, as discussed in the first paragraph of prevalence. Consider the following:


 * prevalence: The number or proportion of cases or events or conditions in a given population.

prevalence rate: The proportion of persons in a population who have a particular disease or attribute at a specified point in time or over a specified period of time. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/digigov/LEXING/CDCEPI/gloss.html


 * Prevalence refers to the total number of individuals in a population who have a disease or health condition at a specific period of time, usually expressed as a percentage of the population.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/prevalence-incidence/


 * Prevalence—The number of cases of a disease, infected people or people with some other attribute present during a particular interval of time. It often is expressed as a rate.

Glossary of Public Health Terms - Iowa Department of Public Health


 * Prevalence is the proportion of people in a population who have some attribute or condition at a given point in time or during a specified time period.

Public Health Terminology - Oregon Health Authority  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  22:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At "some point in time" simply means "the percentage of people affected at some point in their life". Seems to be fairly clear English to me. Not sure what you feel is not understandable about it? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you debating this with me because it forced me to think more carefully. I now realize that my concern is that there are different types of prevalence, about which most laypeople--and many professionals--are not aware, or do not understand fully. For example, although I've had graduate coursework in public health & epidemiology, I usually have to look up definitions to make sure I understand the type of prevalence referenced in an article. As I thought about this question, I also realized I better double check DSM-5 to ascertain which type of prevalence they use. I'm glad I did so because DSM-5 indicates that lifetime morbid risk is 8.7% (DSM-5 uses a less common term, "projected lifetime risk") and 12-month prevalence is 3.5%. I changed the infobox accordingly - see what you think. Thanks -  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  06:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think life time risk is good. Have changed it to "12-month risk" to match. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think "intrusive memories or dreams" instead of "Disturbing thoughts, feelings, or dreams related to the event" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I was trying to get "intrusive" in there, but I actually like your wording better--"disturbing" connotes intrusive and your phrasing is succinct. / I also like your edit to "12-month risk". :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  05:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Message suitable discussion for WP Medicine?
Hi James. Please could you tell me whether this message (see the link) would be suitable to post at the discussion board for WikiProject Medicine? 

My understanding is that the complement system is relevant for WP:Physiology, but that seems inactive. But then maybe WP:Physiology is a subgroup of WP:Medicine? Anyway, please give me your thoughts on whether I should post it on WP:Medicine at all (I was thinking here), if you have the time to check. Thank you! --Treetear (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure User:Treetear post away. Yes many WP's are inactive. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the answer! --Treetear (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth control
Concerning your revert Ref says o.4: This is not true. The source clearly says that 0.4 is for the symptothermal method only, which is exactly what I was trying to clarify. --rtc (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay so if symptothermal is one type within the larger group than yes 0.4% is a low end of that larger group. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply at Talk:Birth_control --rtc (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JzG has reverted my most recent attempt to find a version that we can both accept on birth control, and threatens to block me again because I allegedly dispected you as "a qualified medical professional with peer-reviewed publications to his name". What is your own opinion on my new version? Do you agree with User:JzG that my version is still not good? --rtc (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that your comment was a personal attack regardless of the merits of the content. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Replied but serious there was nothing wrong with the preexisting content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @JzG, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about personal attacks. It is not an attack to suspect someone may have misunderstood a surprising mathematical property and hint him at this possiblity. @Doc James: I well understand your opinion (which I don't share) that nothing is wrong with the preexisting content, but that was not my question. My question was about your opinion on my most recent version, reverted by JzG --rtc (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Change is not needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again you did not answer my question. And, frankly, I find it quite provocative that you now started reverting more of my changes. The source does not use the notion of "total sexual abstinence". Nor does it advocate such a thing. In fact, it presents both various degrees of abstinence from any kind of sexual activity, and it presents abstinence from vaginal intercourse, which it calls "outercourse". --rtc (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

CLL
I have always thought that the article should be named per your move a few mins ago. Wanted to say thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect :-) Thanks User:Roxy the dog. The prior name was a little weird. Hard find evidence that it was even a synonyms. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Lymphangiomatosis
Lymphangiomatosis looks unloved. Do you know someone who is active in the correct area who might take it on? Guy (Help!) 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:JzG took a first stab at it but still lots to do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * [Like]. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Circ and HIV in MSM
I think your inclusion of an unpublished meta-analysis in an obscure journal is not justified, and should be deleted. Better to wait for CDC/WHO to continue to review the evidence and see if they change their evaluation of the evidence. I only read the abstract because I won't pay for reading an non-peer reviewed article. Did you review the entire article and decide that this is recommendation-changing evidence? Petersmillard (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Petersmillard It is published here
 * The journal has an impact factor of 4.4 which is fairly decent.
 * A Cochrane review comes to a similar conclusion
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All in all a great argument for adult circumcision. Still not convinced about elective surgery on infants though. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup and I think our article reflects that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Rtc
I opened a proposal for a topic ban on WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I sense an amount of sea lioning. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I resemble that remark. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So now I am accused of asking for arguments instead of ignorance? Such an evil and bad thing. Why is there no policy against it? You should quickly add it to WP:POINT, so you can start blocking all those brazen argument-hungry users. --rtc (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically you need to start a RfC and see if you can get consensus instead of edit warring. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

 * Hey Ben. Thanks. Definitely no hard feelings. We all mess up once in a while. You have put in a lot of hard work over the years. I hope you have backed away form the dark side :-) Here is to a better 2018... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes
It's that time of the year, James. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for  all you do for the project. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you  are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Kudpung, likewise. Yah, we just got 3 feet of snow and I went for a 14 km ski today :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of COI tag
Hi Doc James: Could you perhaps have a look at the removal of this COI tag? I do not think the removal is justified. Thanks. --Saidmann (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup removal was not appropriate. Thanks for the heads up User:Saidmann Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Opioids
Contrary to your claim, the statistical numbers I added under the addiction section is not directly referenced under social. On the contrary, the references to the epidemic under social is cast in a light of efforts to minimize the epidemic rather than draw interested readers to the significant size effects of the epidemic.

I would also question your vested interest in the subject under Wikipedia rules as your edits can be shown to systematically place the drug in a positive light.

Please refrain from undoing my legitimate add to this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Hugot (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a suitable reference for itself.
 * Please provide diffs for this "your edits can be shown to systematically place the drug in a positive light"
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Etiology vs. Cause
Hi Doc. Why did you reverted my changes? The term "etiology" is more appropriate. 185.43.229.118 (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of Wikipedia readers will not understand the word etiology but are far more likely to understand the word cause. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, TylerDurden8823, but it can be linked in the article, so others can read it. Anyway, as i said below, using "cause" instead of "etiology" is not problem-both terms are correct. I just wanted to learn the reason of the revert. 185.43.229.129 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No the word "cause" is more appropriate. This is English Wikipedia. Etiology would be appropriate on either Latin or Ancient Greek Wikipedia maybe. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, James. Because the term is used in English sources-it is a commonly used term in abnormal psychology. Using "cause" instead of "etiology" is not a big problem, as both terms are correct, but i would prefer "etiology". 185.43.229.129 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDMOS we use easier to understand language.
 * By the way how did you get on from a Turkish IP address? I though we were blocked there? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is Kyrenian, but for some reason, the location tools say otherwise. 185.43.229.92 (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will have a look WP:MEDMOS, thank you. 185.43.229.92 (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've read it, if the reason of the revert is per WP:MEDMOS, then it makes sense. The term "etiology" is used in English sources on abnormal psychology and that was why i was confused. Because you first said that it was not in English. Anyway, WP:MEDMOS makes sense. Thank you, Doc James. 185.43.229.92 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The exact line from MEDMOS is "The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity." Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Simple-type schizophrenia
Hello, Doc James. Please, check the article simple-type schizophrenia. I'm not sure, but I think there are copyright violations. Or too many quotes. Is it allowed to do such long quotes? – Лорд Алекс (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree those need rewording / paraphrasing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you help me with that? My English is not so good. Also, I have a question. Is the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria copyrighted, isn't it? World Health Organization uploaded full versions of manuals in the PDF format for free download in English: Diagnostic criteria for research & Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. In many articles I've found quotes of all criteria (of the ICD-10 diagnoses), without rewording / paraphrasing. Not sure if it's allowed or not. The Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation has authorized to copy/paste/reprint of the Russian adapted version of the ICD-10. But the DSM is copyrighted, it's a fact. – Лорд Алекс (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Лорд Алекс I think the ICD 9 may have been open, but than the ICD 10 was not. Rumor has it the APA who publishes the DSM have requested we not use their criteria verbatum. Which do you want help paraphrasing? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which do you we need paraphrasing? Doc James, you know best, I'm sure. Look at the article, what's wrong? I only removed a big quote ("copy/paste") from this source. – Лорд Алекс (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay will look as I have time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you in advance. – Лорд Алекс (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Davey2010 and likewise :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Hi James, all the best to you for Christmas and New Year, and thanks for everything you do around here. SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:SlimVirgin. And you aswell :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cystocele refs
There are two hoff refs that cover different page ranges. You are going to end up disassociating the content from its page numbers. I've asked the guild of copy editors how to resolve this and I am waiting for their response. There are two Hoff refs, each one with a different page range. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay have added the page number to the name of the ref to prevent confusion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But the page number you added is incorrect. Here, let me explain the problem. The Hoffman text, which is quite good, has three sections that cover the topic of cystocele. I haven't even added the third section yet. So I named the Hoffman ref twice. One hoff ref is for the first set of page ranges (in the 600s) and the second hoff ref is for the second range of pages (1200s). You don't like the havard citation system where I can cite the specific page numbers and you deleted that from the Miscarriage article. So which is it? Three references with a range of page numbers or the harvard referencing system with a bibliography with specific page numbers? I'm trying to edit according to your preferences but now the issue is even more confusing to me. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weakening and detachment are not the equivalent of degenerative tissue changes. Tissue can weaken and detach without degeneration. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. Weakening is the same as degenerative changes.
 * The ref name indicates the start. It is fine like that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ummm...I keep correcting the refs. When you change them all to the same ref name, they aren't necessarily referencing the content they are supporting. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 00:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I had just changed "hoff" and not "hoff2"? User:Barbara (WVS) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in theory yes but when I add new content and then the ref, it still gets screwy. Here, since you like renaming the ref names, I'll stop for the night in ten minutes and then you can go in and change the ref names into anything that you like. There must something else to fix for the next ten minutes. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 00:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I find it useful having slightly more info in the ref name. Specifically the year of publication. I find it useful for ongoing maintenance. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're cool. It's all yours and.....


 * Thanks User:Barbara (WVS) Hope you have happy holidays. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit
Was my edit/revert appropriate on the Huntington's Disease page that you're currently monitoring? Just curious. Of course, feel free to revert it right back. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes thank User:Beauty School Dropout. I agree Illicit makes no sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page for "Edward H. Kim"
Hello,

Several years ago, a page was created that contained my biography. It's proven to be helpful on multiple occasions as a reference for people who were doing research on me or a company for whom I worked. I just noticed that the page was deleted in Sept 2017 by you. May I ask why please? And is it possible to reestablish the page? I think the last time I looked at it was about 6 months ago, and it looked accurate. Were there changes made to the page by someone that caused you to delete it?

Thank you very much.

Best, Edward H. Kim 65.35.58.145 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PAID
 * I imagine the warranty on the page was only a year? Have you tried asking for your money back? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The page was created many years ago. I'll try to dig up who created it. Thanks again. 65.35.58.145 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was "WikiExperts" from what I understand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a page deleted literally  years ago, it might have been Edward Kim ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Bzuk :-) Yes about 3 to 4 feet of snow... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

 * Thanks User:GSS-1987 Same to you :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

 * Thanks User:CAPTAIN RAJU :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry, merry Christmas


Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Smallbones Thanks and same to you :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Atrial fibrillation
I just wanted to let you know that I left detailed responses on the talk page addressing the points you raised. Please have a look when you have a moment. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting stuff to look at. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Merry Xmas
I also wish you all the best! Best. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  10:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes
No pictures and all; just wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a pleasant 2018:) Winged Blades Godric 12:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks User talk:Winged Blades of Godric :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry christmas from me too. Thank you for all your help.🎄 Whispyhistory (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Whispyhistory Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Finasteride
Hi Doc James,

Why did you revert my recent edits without commenting? Both of those statements are non-fact based opinions that are either unsourced or are improperly unsourced.
 * Take it to the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Phage therapy
The Phage therapy article is appalling, full of crap sources and anecdote. Something for your "to do" list? Ratel (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree looks like it needs a major update / improvement. User:Jytdog? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that will be a fun project for the tween time. I will do it! Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Figuring out quality of a study
Doc, what's your take on the value (as a potential source in WP) of this article? I'm unclear how the various lists of prestige journals and the various indexes and such get factored in for stuff related to psychology and things like ASD. Any insights would be welcomed. Montanabw (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Montanabw So that is a small primary study.
 * So we generally would not used it.
 * The journal it is from is okayish having an impact factor greater than 1 and being pubmed indexed.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely not something close to usable. As an FYI Doc, this appears to be continuing from Equine-assisted therapy and its talk page where MEDRS reviews have characterized such "treatments" for mental health disorders as based on very low quality studies and nearly called out as snake oil as currently marketed by review authors (somewhat in the real of complementary and alternative medicine). Not sure how much the mental health topics interest you, but it might be worth a look if it interests you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The underlying study is here: . I posted this for a neutral look because I am not yet ready to propose any ASD stuff as a change to the existing article. I view ASD in this particular context as not quite in the realm of pure mental health treatment nor quite physical health treatment either, but there are some really interesting results, though apparently a lot of the studies on EAT on ASD stuff appear to be in French and so I'm not able to assess them at all. So I'm looking around to see what's out there in English, and this was a newer study.  Montanabw (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * an aside to the tps comment, which isn't really germane to my question above, but now that it's been mentioned, I guess I'd best respond here. Indeed, the EAT article page has had a lot of intense discussion, particularly surrounding mental health treatment. I have no interest in creating a new round of drama, but edited there because I was wanting to tweak the lead a bit. The overall difficulty with this topic is a LOT of "small primary studies" (I've located dozens if not hundreds) but very little meta-analysis, probably in part due to lack of funding, and then when attempted, lack of standardization and so on.  The typical statistically-validated, double-blind stuff that can be done in a lab is tough in the field where large animals are involved.  The mental health field is particularly hard to assess, as so far everyone is more or less off on their own tangent.   Pretty much everyone does agree that the use of EAAT for mental health is  poorly studied.   But "snake oil" is a bit extreme, as there is exactly one study that was published in a major, prestigious journal, discouraging its use over more validated treatments for use with veterans with PTSD.  There are also two or three other literature reviews from less prestigious sources and less well-credentialed authors but with more neutral or positive assessment. All that said, even those with favorable views agree that there is insufficient quality data.  Until there is more, I do not intend to open that can of worms up again.  Montanabw (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With the underlying literature being of small studies the conclusions are going to be tentative. We have this systematic review
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Nina Teicholz
Reaching out because I have written a brief article about Nina Teicholz (and have fully disclosed my connection to her in my user area). As you removed the previous one, wanted to understand your concerns so that I don't repeat them. Happy to have you review a draft. Thanks. Leslieaun (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Nanotechnology-based vaccine and drug delivery
Is nanotechnology-based vaccine and drug delivery a real thing as documented in the lede to Owais Mohammad as a researcher's field? My bioscience chops aren't up to making a determination. But I do notice that all but two of the citations are to his own works, and one of those two exceptions are is from his employer. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It definitely is, although this particular researcher is outside of my knowledge base. bd2412  T 19:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup area of research. Has it reached medical practice, not so much yet. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Doing a very quick check, I note that the two books he has authored are published (as print-on-demand) by two different imprints of the same author mill. (Victoria Strauss – of Writer Beware – has identified VDM Verlag Dr. Müller and LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing as the same publisher, and doesn't have complimentary things to say about them: .)
 * That's not to say that the guy doesn't have redeeming qualities, but it raises flags when the above-the-fold part of a bio starts with that sort of stuff. Another chunk of the opening paragraph talks about how to find and count his publications on Google Scholar and ResearchGate.  (And it's a bit worrying that GS/RG are being used to 'pad' the publication count; our article says "More than 60" publications, but PubMed only shows about 25.) The rest of the article needs heavy work, too.  It's weird that the "selected bibliography" picks out three of his papers that are all more than a decade old, in middling journals, where he's got just middle authorship (neither first nor senior author), reporting work that's...not particularly exciting.
 * The guy might well meet WP:PROF, but the author of our article didn't do him any favors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes with respect to the quality of references, I am not convinced it is sufficient to justify notability. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

 * Thanks User:PaleoNeonate :-) Same to you! Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks User:Awardgiver :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Test
Text Text Text