Talk:Fast parallel proteolysis

(Elimination of) vagueness

We all want to have as much science put into as little as possible (crystal clear) words to transport crucial concepts to as broad an audience as possible in as short as possible amounts of time. To this end, it will be greatly appreciated if the person who detected residual vagueness in this wiki could be more clear on what could/should be improved. Thanks! cheers, David P Minde (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

neutrality

I believe that there is nothing wrong with describing some research in a public setting such as wikipedia. David P Minde (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure there isn't. Describing research on WP is good, definitely. And I'm happy you created the article. I am only worried about the content balance. The article as it is now talks mostly about the advantages of the method but there is little substance on the background, on how the method actually works and on its limits. That's why it sounds a bit like "advertisement". As I told on your talk page, it's no badge of shame, it's normal when one starts writing here, and especially when one starts doing it by writing on their own stuff. It may be a good idea to read this, a paper on how to edit Wikipedia for scientists, especially points 7 and 8. --Cyclopia^talk 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@how it works: good point: a figure will come as soon as i will have a little free time for playing around with this (for now: feel free to check the primary literature)

@limits: some people know pretty much about intrinsic limits of proteolysis. Others can look into Proteolysis Wiki link to get an idea. David P Minde (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't say "people know pretty much" about a quite specific topic. We aim to write for the general public, not for experts. About the figure: excellent, but be sure to find one compatible with WP licensing. --Cyclopia^talk 15:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

guess for the layman, it needs a pretty good figure (in prep) David P Minde (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

hope figure helps a bit... cheers, David P Minde (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

advertising claim

it is unclear what part could be considered advertising as all references are needed for scientific validation of the content. External link points toward alternative but closly related methods. Whoever does not like it, is more than free to improve the scientific content, of course... David P Minde (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The references are a good thing. The problem is not with links. It's with the article tone. --Cyclopia^talk 15:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

do you think this is fixed now? David P Minde (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's surely improved, thank you! I removed the tag. --Cyclopia^talk 12:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.