User talk:Thailand2021

Your edits to Capillary refill
Hi there! I see you've had a Wikipedia account for a couple of years now, and yet no-one has left you a message here, on your talk page, to say hello and welcome. Allow me to correct that: Welcome! Thank you for joining us in editing Wikipedia.

Your contributions show that you already know how to edit, and so you may not be after any help. But just in case, here are some links to information that can often be useful to new editors:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

I see that your edits have mainly been to the article Capillary refill, where you have been adding information on recent research into the effectiveness of the capillary refill test (CRT). That's great! However, there are a couple of things that I think should be considered, so that this information gets integrated into the article in the best possible way.

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a guidebook, a textbook, or a "how-to". The article can describe how the CRT is done, but it should not try to coach the reader on how to do it. Some of your writing seems to fall into the latter category, for example by using emphasis (bold and underline ) to highlight key points that a student or trainee might need to recall. It also adopts a tone of argument or correction, in stating that the CRT should be done on the pad of the finger (not the nail), and that 3 seconds (not 2) should be the cutoff time. It repeats this three times, again using bold and underline, as if to instruct, not document.

That brings me to my second point, which is more important: Articles should not rely too much on primary sources. The research you have cited may be very important—but Wikipedia is not the place to disseminate that important information. Instead, it should show that this research has made its way into secondary sources, like guides to clinical practice. If it has not done so yet (after all, the paper cited was only published in 2022), then it should not be too big a part of the article's content. It may even be better not to include it at all.

I note that you have cited two sources that share some authors. That makes me wonder whether you are one of these authors, or are connected with them. (Your username, "Thailand2021", also suggests a possible connection, since these authors are listed as affiliated with Mahidol University, Bangkok.) If that is so, I would ask you to please be careful about how you add information that you are closely involved with. Experts are very welcome here, and their knowledge is extremely valuable, but it is difficult to be objective about such topics, and even the appearance of possible bias can damage readers' trust and harm Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge.

(Please note that I'm not asking you to say whether you are one of these authors. I certainly do not want to pressure you to reveal your identity, or any personal information!)

Anyway, this is getting both lengthy and serious, and I don't want you to be disheartened or feel hostility. So let me say again, welcome, and thank you for editing. I found it very interesting to read about the CRT and whether or not it is reliable. I'm writing this because I now care about the topic and the quality of that article, and you deserve your part of the credit for that. I look forward to seeing what other knowledge you can share with us!

-- Perey (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)