User talk:Vdelso

JFW &#124; T@lk  17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

TheHeart.org
I'm not sure if I would regard http://www.theheart.org as a suitable source for encyclopedia articles. When selecting references for medical articles, we tend to rely on WP:MEDRS, a consensus guideline that sets standards for references. Could you have a look at this and consider revising some of your recent additions? I'll be happy to help if required. JFW &#124; T@lk  17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jfdwolff. Thank you for taking the time to look into the articles to ensure quality and accuracy. I had a look at the guidelines, and I am not sure where in the guidelines you were referring to that makes theheart.org not a suitable source. 1. The piece of work itself contains accurate information (cited from academic sources). 2. The writers are professionals who have authority on the subject. 3. Theheart.org (owned by webmd.com) is a reliable source that healthcare professionals refer to. http://www.theheart.org/about.do I don't see how this source was any different from the other sources I cited, some of which were pharmaceutical companies. Looking forward to a response, and hopefully another opinion! Vdelso (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It just occured to me that maybe you thought it was not a reliable source because one has to sign up to read the articles. (Sign up is free by the way) Vdelso (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On WP:MEDRS we imply that peer-reviewed reviews are much preferable over "secondary sources" in other forms. I will happily bring this up on WT:MEDRS, the associated discussion page, but I think the response can be anticipated. In the meantime, could I encourage you to cite sources from peer-reviewed sources? The study you quoted on rosiglitazone would have been a WP:MEDRS-comptible source if you had sourced it straight to the BMJ rather than TheHeart. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pointing this out for me. I will definitely be sure to include peer-reviewed sources as citations as a priority. The article you sent me does not completely discredit some secondary sources though. The information obtained from secondary sources have all came from reputable organizations. It says that "popular press" is probably not the best source for information, however, organizations like theheart.org, or The American Heart Association do not fall under that umbrella. Instead I would say they are considered as "medical and scientific organizations" which have "statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies" that can "be valuable encyclopedic sources."(Vdelso (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC))


 * No, I disagree. TheHeart is a news service, and is not formally peer reviewed. We could discuss this on WT:MED. I will open a thread there. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We've had a number of responses to the thread (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine). The gist of it seems to be that it is not a great source for medical content. Could I ask you to avoid using it? JFW &#124; T@lk  09:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is wanted
Please provide your input here on the legitimacy and desirability of accepting external links in relevant Wikipedia articles to MedMerits, a new and freely accessible online resource on neurologic disorders. Presto54 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Med
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)