Talk:Platelet

IiKkEe (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the first sentence of the aggregation section is Yip et al "Primary platelet adhesion receptors". IUBMB life, 2005 - Wiley Online Library.

(I am still trying to learn how to import citations.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you need is the PubMed id number from here [2], which you just add to the template like this:.

talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

IiKkEe (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

....and the title of the article is?

talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

IiKkEe (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you above that all you need is the PMID number :-) but you are not using the simple template that will complete the reference for you it is <ref>{{cite pmid|add number here}}</ref>

talk) 22:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

IiKkEe (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two references added to the "Discovery and naming" section are: 1) Wright JH. The origin and nature of blood plates. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 1906;154:643-645 and 2)Wright JH. The histogenesis of blood platelets. J Morphology 1910;21:263-278. No PMID number: it's going to take me awhile to figure out how to cite these.

IiKkEe (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite doi}} should help:

Wright, J. H. (1906). "The Origin and Nature of the Blood Plates". The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. 154 (23): 643.

doi:10.1056/NEJM190606071542301

.

Thanks for all the edits you've made to this page recently! SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is where I type to reply to you, or how you know I've typed a reply for you to read. I'll try it and see what happens.

I appreciate your thanks.

I pasted what you wrote into the article after the sentence to be cited, and no red flags were raised, but I don't know how it gets converted to a number and shifted to the end of the article: is that automatic?

I also don't know what you did to turn the doi format on the first line to the format with the number in it the second line. I'll keep working on it.

Also, how did know that my comment was even there for you to respond to?

IiKkEe (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Osler in Discovery section: Osler, W (1886a) Cartwright Lectures. On certain problems in the physiology of the blood corpuscles. Medical News, April 3, 10,17.

IiKkEe (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 16 and 17 are the same reference for different parts of the page, but they came out looking different

IiKkEe (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References 27 and 28 are identical and are related to a topic beyond the scope of this page (platelet response to liver disease). Also we have 4 references to one sentence: overkill. Unless there is an objection I will delete these.

I have a Reading and a Link to the same book. If it is necessary to choose between the two, the link is preferred: it is free, and provides a portal to the book: two for the price of one.

Are there any prohibitions to using an online non-peer reviewed site as a reference? The site is managed by ten hematologists and is highly reliable.

I am still looking for help with getting above non-PMID references into the page.

IiKkEe (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE contains everything you could need to know about referencing, but I'll try to help with your specific problems. First of all, anything inside the reference tags (i.e. <ref> </ref>) is listed where the {{reflist}} is placed at the bottom of the article. However you reference a source, it needs to be inside reference tags to be formatted correctly. To use {{cite doi}} you need to find the digital object identifier of the source, which I normally do by googling the title of the paper - sometimes you need to visit a few pages to find it, and adding "doi" to your search query can speed this up. For example, I found the Osler paper here and in small font there is a link to http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.1322.807. If you copy the bit after '.org/' into {{cite doi}} you'll be able to reference the work and not have to bother writing all the details of the paper yourself, as a computer will access a database and create the reference for you. If you want to reference the same paper twice, you can change the first <ref> to something like <ref name=author1900> and then when you next want to reference the work, just add <ref name=author1900/> (note the additional /). I made a series of edits to the article where I made some changes which I hope will make sense now that I've explained it more thoroughly. You could try to turn the Wright reference into a {{cite doi

}} and add the Osler one properly.

Please let me know if you have any other questions. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE: Thanks so much for the detailed reply. I still can't get my head around how the system knows that the talk page has a new edit and notifies you: I'll just have to accept it! Regarding Megakaryocytes: I have intentionally mentioned megakaryocytes only minimally on the premise that that should be addressed at the Megakaryocyte page. I linked to it with great reluctance because it is just awful!(my opinion) For example, the very subject you inquired about is covered there in the section "Platelet Release". I would call it Platelet Production - release has to do with platelets leaving the marrow. The entire process is described as "The cell ceases its growth ...and begins to produce platelets" with a reference to a hematology textbook chapter. It then states there are "two proposed mechanisms for platelet release" - the "explosive mechanism" is referenced with a 1995 paper from Blood - which is OK but has nothing new been determined in 19 years? The second theory the cell "may form platelet ribbons" No reference. And that "each of these ...processes can give rise to 2000-5000 new platelets upon breakup" No reference, and no mention of platelet output per megakaryocyte It then went on to discuss thrombopoietin. "it is essential for the formation of an adequate quantity of platelets" That's it. This site has a link to Essential Thrombocythaemia which states "The pathologic basis for this disease is unknown"! I left a message on the Talk page with a list of 12 inadequacies od the site and recommended it be shut down until the 12 issues I brought up were addressed. I was overruled. I also went to the link Thrombopoeitin, found an identical situation, left a note on the Talk page there with 4 criticisms, recommended it be shut down until issues addressed, and was overruled, stating the site was "not so bad".

So back to the main point: I think it is important to stay on track and just talk about platelets, not the important ancillary subjects - that should be done on those pages.

Regarding references: I'm surprised you prefer texts and review articles to original research: I prefer just the opposite. Are we talking about Wikipedia policy, or personal preference? An example is the newest section I expanded on "Discovery, early observations, and naming" I got all the references for that section from one review article, but what I said about those references was completely different from what the review article said. Did the same thing with a NEJM article on platelets and thrombi, took some of the references, not the narrative. The problems with review articles and books are not everything in them is referenced, some is author opinion; and when they are cited there is no way of knowing which specific sentence is being referenced: just a page, chapter, or article. And who on Wikipedia verifies the citations are relevant or accurate? At least the title to a paper can be viewed to see if the subject matches the sentence. There was one sentence on the Platelets page when I arrived that had 5 references for that one sentence. Basically it was a bibliography for the subject of the sentence, not supporting evidence for a specific fact.

When I came upon the Platelets page two weeks ago, the three things I thought I could improve were 1) section titles and organization 2) rewording sentences for clarity and accuracy , and 3) deleting inaccuracies and the unneeded. If you are ever so inclined, go to the history section on the page, and compare the page before me (3-16-14) to the current page, side by side to best see what I have done. I never intended to add new material, but as you know, I have begun to dabble in that. It is an enormous undertaking for me at least, especially the citing, but now that the page is basically all me organizationally, I can't stop. The two things I would like to do next are to do some "link image without displaying". I read how to do it on a Wikipedia instruction page. As I understand it, this is a way around the copyright problem: just place a link to the online copyrighted image or video you want the reader to look at, in the body of the text where it's needed, the reader clicks and looks, then closes and moves on. No importing, no copyright violation, total access. Do I have that right? The second thing is to open an "Ultrastructure and function" section. There is a tremendous amount known in that area and none of it was addressed before me. I'll have to learn it before I can write it. And it needs illustrations

So I will take you up on your offer to contact you for specific questions as they come up. Thanks for your interest - any feedback on any of the above would be welcomed. I don't feel so alone any more.

IiKkEe (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I learned the "link image without displaying" feature is a copyright violation, so I'll scrap that idea.

IiKkEe (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE: I added a reference to Wound repair from a book which I don't know how to format. Could you help? Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Editing Wikipedia takes a lot of learning unfortunately! I hardly know anything about platelets but how they are formed seems to me to be an vitally important part any encyclopedic article to discuss, even if there is a separate page for megakaryocytes. I agree that the content there is not well-sourced but I tend to think that something is better than nothing. As you've noticed there are many problems with content here that may not be accurate or is poorly sourced and it takes a great deal of work to try and find sources for content that's already here. We still have a lot of work to do! Don't be afraid to

you have to do it yourself

(as you have been).

As I alluded to before, the issue of which sources to use is a complex one to which there is no simple answer. In general we prefer secondary sources such as reviews because as a tertiary source we should only include well-established information and reviews are generally the best way for editors without any prior knowledge of a subject to decide it. You're correct that the reviews can contain opinion, but that's the point - an expert has written it and Wikipedia

trust that our sources are reliable

unless they are contradictory and common sense prevails.

You've already made comprehensive changes to the article and you're brave to have started! I've certainly never written on such a broad subject here and I appreciate how difficult it is to make progress. I definitely think that a section on ultrastructure and function would help. If you still struggle with the references, don't worry - if you just put the title of a paper inside reference tags (<ref></ref>) someone else can fix the rest for you. As for illustrations, again, most of them we have to make ourself, unless you can find something in

User:Kelvinsong

makes amazing biological illustrations and might be able to assist if you explain what is required.