User talk:Rdtest

User:Rdtest/Sandbox
I see that you are using multiple references for some statements on the above draft article.

May I suggest that instead of having 7 or 8 references for one statement, that you instead choose 2 or 3, and put the rest of the references in a "Further Reading" section - after the reference list and before the external links (as I did on the William Stanley (Victorian inventor) article).

This would make it look tidier, so you don't have something like "Blah blah blah [1][2][3][5][6][8][9]"!

Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For example, for the sentence "Brachytherapy is commonly used as an effective treatment for cervical,[1] prostate,[2] breast,[3] and skin cancer[4] and can also be used to treat tumours in many other body sites.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]", rather than list all of the chapters in The GEC ESTRO handbook of brachytherapy that mention it (i.e. refs 6-13), I would just have one of them, and have the chapters listed under the "Further Reading", or just choose a couple of them as indicative of other sites. Otherwise, you should list all of the sites of the body that it can be used in individually, if it is significant. I would have your reference 5 (GEC-ESTRO recommendations for brachytherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinomas), and then just a general "The GEC ESTRO handbook of brachytherapy. Belgium: ACCO." reference for reference 6, instead of having 8 references from it! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for jumping in, but I saw your question at the help desk. I don't know anything about brachytherapy, but I note that sometimes a long list of refs can be a sign of original research.  For example, if you want to write "Treatment results have demonstrated that the cancer cure rates of brachytherapy are either comparable to surgery and EBRT, or are improved when used in combination with these techniques", the best reference would be to a single secondary source (eg a review article) that makes that claim.  Referencing a long list of primary articles suggests that you have drawn that conclusion yourself based on your own study, which would mean the conclusion could not be included in Wikipedia per the policy on original research.  Knowing how long it takes to prepare so many references, I'm sorry this wasn't pointed out to you earlier.  You might want to take a look at WP:MEDRS which seems particularly relevant to you.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You also might be interested in Template:Cite pmid, an absolute godsend that takes all the hard work out of preparing citations to journal articles. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and...