Talk:Sacituzumab govitecan
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sacituzumab govitecan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sacituzumab govitecan.
|
Results in mTNBC for Development
[1] announces encouraging results for mTNBC. How to summarise ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- You don't. It's a press release of unpublished, non-vetted results. It's not salient or reliable information nor is the source reliable, let alone WP:MEDRS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Administration Section
Hey@Whywhenwhohow: I noticed that you removed a substantial portion of my edits, mentioning that the source I used (drugs.com), is not a reliable WP:MEDRS source. If you look on the drugs.com website, you'll find that it gathers information from two large credible databases (Lexicomp and Micromedex.) Additionally, according to WP:PHARM, drugs.com is classified as a reliable source. With these thoughts in mind, I went back and added my edits on the administration section. Thank you for also catching the incorrect pronoun use in my edits, and I went back to fix those errors when I added the section on administration. Coffeeking123 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Coffeeking123: I removed the content because we don't include dosing and related text in the articles about medications. See WP:MEDMOS, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDICAL. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know! Just to clarify , did you remove those edits under the thought process that providing dosing information of the drug could be interpreted as instructional (which violates policy)? When I added those edits regarding the typical dosing information, I thought that it would not be classified as such because this information came from the drug page itself and was more so a detail on how the drug is typically used in practice. Please let me know your thoughts. Coffeeking123 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Coffeeking123: Both of those things. See WP:MEDMOS and WP:NOTGUIDE --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know! Just to clarify , did you remove those edits under the thought process that providing dosing information of the drug could be interpreted as instructional (which violates policy)? When I added those edits regarding the typical dosing information, I thought that it would not be classified as such because this information came from the drug page itself and was more so a detail on how the drug is typically used in practice. Please let me know your thoughts. Coffeeking123 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Coffeeking123: I removed the content because we don't include dosing and related text in the articles about medications. See WP:MEDMOS, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDICAL. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)