This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
Wikipedia biomedical editing Editing for medical experts Reliable sources FAQ Why MEDRS? Biomedical information Manual of style Conflicts of interest Plain...
Click to read more »article a bit. FIRST current potential problem is the complete absence of WP:RSMED. The present citations simply do not meet those criteria. However, is this...
Click to read more »independent sources. There are no RS coverage and no secondary sources (under WP:RSMED) in the article and all are unreliable medical sources. ●Mehran Debate●...
Click to read more »festers. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Delete WP:DEL7. No WP:RSMED in over 10 years. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:RSMEDWikipedia:RSMED → Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (links to redirect •...
Click to read more »JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:RSMEDWikipedia:RSMED → Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (links to redirect •...
Click to read more »It is a sufficiently notable topic and it is currently compliant with WP:RSMED. Reba16 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »especially for the time period. Fails: WP:GNG, WP: ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:RSMED. Here’s an analysis of the sources: Article sources: Equivalent to Who’s...
Click to read more »(promoting their own techniques/alternative medicines). This article fails WP:RSMED. --CyberXReftalk 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...
Click to read more »shouldn't be considered as reliable here because of that as they fail WP:RSMED as they make the questionable assertion that Hekalogía "demonstrated 'progressive...
Click to read more »article has no properly referenced content, which is a concern since WP:RSMED applies to the melanin production claims. -- 202.124.73.202 (talk) 22:55...
Click to read more »as a reference to synonyms in articles' lead. While it may not satisfy RSMED, using this source as a thesaurus is reasonable. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 15...
Click to read more »sources, not the WP:RSMED up to date guidelines. aprock (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I cannot see the logic of applying WP:RSMED here in any case...
Click to read more »earth". Amongst other things like failing to recognize the seniority of WP:RSMED over WP:RS, these editors are engaged in politically slanted cheerleading...
Click to read more »they have previously argued - erroneously, and at length - for only WP:RSMED to appear in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, which couldn't happen...
Click to read more »citations to news reports). I fully accept that I was not familiar with WP:RSMED or its requirements and was content to have that section removed while I...
Click to read more »The content was removed by Moksha88 - edit summary: Youtube is not WP:RSMED. It was restored soon after by RTG - edit summary: That is on a case by...
Click to read more »an exceptional standard of reliability on those articles by sticking to RSMED and managing out obvious POV editors. The "pharma shill gambit" is very...
Click to read more »indicate anything about the medical world. Perhaps it should be renamed as RSmed? 98.122.20.56 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC) The name is fine; there...
Click to read more »American Medical Association is generally reliable, as established in WP:RSMED § Biomedical journals and WP:RSP § JAMA. The source appears to be reliable...
Click to read more »case of WP:RSMEDs superseding WP:RS. On that point, please give your 2 cents on the talk page. Specifically on the matter of how WP:RSMED rightly states...
Click to read more »especially for the time period. Fails: WP:GNG, WP: ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:RSMED. Here’s an analysis of the sources: Article sources: Equivalent to Who’s...
Click to read more »ejaculation, in spite of being told that it is expressly prohibited by WP:RSMED. Michael2012ro has even said that in a few years the MDs who gave the advice...
Click to read more »article a bit. FIRST current potential problem is the complete absence of WP:RSMED. The present citations simply do not meet those criteria. However, is this...
Click to read more »WP:SECONDARY depending on what you want to use it for. Second, WP:RS and WP:RSMED are not always the same thing. The insane amount of information I dumped...
Click to read more »It is a sufficiently notable topic and it is currently compliant with WP:RSMED. Reba16 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »the following sentence is supported by sources that don't meet the higher RSMED standards (primary research, and a newspaper article): Links have been made...
Click to read more »festers. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Delete WP:DEL7. No WP:RSMED in over 10 years. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »article has no properly referenced content, which is a concern since WP:RSMED applies to the melanin production claims. -- 202.124.73.202 (talk) 22:55...
Click to read more »independent sources. There are no RS coverage and no secondary sources (under WP:RSMED) in the article and all are unreliable medical sources. ●Mehran Debate●...
Click to read more »(promoting their own techniques/alternative medicines). This article fails WP:RSMED. --CyberXReftalk 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more...
Click to read more »Podiaebba (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I'm not familiar with WP:RSMED, but in response to one of the early comments, surely it will have something...
Click to read more »way to compare with anything a newspaper does. Do you see my problem? WP:RSMED (which again I didn't write, but like) does an admirable job of starting...
Click to read more »Mantak Chia or his books reliable sources on human sexuality according to WP:RSMED? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC) No because he does not...
Click to read more »single research paper is not due for inclusion on medical topics per WP:RSMED. NYPOST is considered generally unreliable, and the WashPost entry is an...
Click to read more »list of predatory open access publishers between 2012 and 2015. Per WP:RSMED primary studies on the effacy of treatments should not be cited in articles...
Click to read more »WP:RSMED source Option 3: Reliable WP:RSLAW source Option 4: WP:QUESTIONABLE for factual reporting Option 5: WP:QUESTIONABLE for RSLAW and RSMED Option...
Click to read more »history.com, and its medical content should not be cited at all per WP:RSMED. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC) I glanced through a dozen...
Click to read more »this person's contributions are medically sound. However, looking at WP:RSMED and WP:SPS, his activity looks a little too self-serving. Drm310 (talk)...
Click to read more »view to pursue creation of new subject based policy or guideline like WP:RSMED that applies only to sourcing for normative documents/standards. I would...
Click to read more »phosphorus. Most of this comes from sources that aren't necessarily WP:RSMED, so... Ssscienccce (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Hmmmm, this source...
Click to read more »what to do? MfD the redirect? Create a new Ksharsutra page with some WP:RSMED sources (if we can find any)? Put in a mention on the Ayurveda page? To...
Click to read more »would appear that the source is in fact not a systematic review (Fails WP:RSMED) and to include it in support of adverse effects of fluoridation would be...
Click to read more »transferred into media rendering the drug nontoxic." I don'r think this is a WP:RSMED. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC) It does seem to be promotional...
Click to read more »shouldn't be considered as reliable here because of that as they fail WP:RSMED as they make the questionable assertion that Hekalogía "demonstrated 'progressive...
Click to read more »will need to read and understand these by following this shortcut link: WP:RSMED. Should you be involved in research or treatments in this condition, you...
Click to read more »