Talk:SARS-CoV-2: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit

Line 182:

:::This source would meet the [[WP:MEDRS]] guidelines, as a peer-reviewed secondary source, reviewing the general state of understanding of SARS-CoV-1. But I'm still missing what from this review you want to include in this article. Because at the end of the day, it's about a different virus. You mention the categories and the performing a word count to determine the relative prominence of the various categories, but there's two problems with this. First, this is just one possible structure that this set of authors chose, by no means a definitive one (and arguably, the volume of text for a scientific review versus an encyclopedic article might not match anyway). Second, wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style ([[WP:MEDORDER]]) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.

:::So again, '''what specific information about SARS-CoV-2 related to animal reservoirs and zoonosis do you think this article is missing, and why does the current article structure make their addition inappropriate?''' [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

:::: Forich's almost sole purpose on Wikipedia over the past year has been to push for the credibility of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory, which is probably what he is trying to do here. I don't see why we should restructure the entire article around the the structure of a particular research paper anyway. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)