User talk:Jghosheh

October 2021
Hello, I'm Zefr. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ziziphus spina-christi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Any content addressing human health or diseases needs sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. Early-stage research and use of extracts are too preliminary to use in the encyclopedia.'' Zefr (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing Ziziphus spina christi
On my talk page, you said: ''I don't understand why my sources are not reliable they are peer-reviewed articles and journals that I cited in the references page. They are both recent studies that add valuable and beneficial information to this tree. You can take a look at my references, I have heavily looked into these two articles and they are backed by medical research and experiments. I will re-add my info again and please taje a look at my two references:''

Ghramh, H., Khan, K. A., & Alshehri, A. (2018, March 827). Antibacterial potential of some Saudi honeys from Asir region against selected pathogenic bacteria. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 1278-1284.

Kadioglu, O., Jacob, S., Bohnert, S., Naß, J., Saeed, M. E., Khalid, H.,. . . Efferth, T. (2016, January 16). Evaluating ancient Egyptian prescriptions today: Anti-inflammatory activity of Ziziphus spina-christi. Phytomedicine, 293-306.


 * Firstly, the Saudi JBS is not Medline-indexed, meaning that it does not have sufficient history and reliability as a medical publication to be listed in Medline. Wikipedia does not use publications that are not Medline-indexed for medical content. Further, the publication was from lab research conducted in vitro, which classifies it as WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia medical content relies on established reviews in reputable publications, explained in WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIASSESS. Secondly, the journal Phytomedicine is not a reliable journal for clinical content and research, and in fact, this study was another example of in vitro research leading to speculation about anti-inflammatory properties. This work is too preliminary (primary) to suggest biomedical effects from the plant. Zefr (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand Mr.Zefr. It makes more sense now I had the incorrect idea that it should just be a scientific journal or article without taking into consideration that the work is too preliminary. I had an assignment that I had to edit a wikipedia page and I chose this one because there was little to no information on it.