| Revision as of 00:22, 5 June 2021 editBender235 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors471,645 edits →top← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024 edit undoPolinet68 (talk | contribs)4 edits →AI upscaled image: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | {{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | ||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=high}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Microbiology|importance=high}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{annual readership|scale=log}} | {{annual readership|scale=log}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
| Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 2012-08-24T14:29:56</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 2012-08-24T14:29:56</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | ||
| I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. ] (]) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Kindly include information about plant pathogens == | |||
| Want to know about biosafety level of '''potential plant pathogens''', diseased plants, herbarium sheets of plant disease, agricultural field sample of plant disease, and instructions and rules and regulations about working with potential plant pathogens. | |||
| ] (]) 10:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == What kind of certification, qualification and inspection is required to open a plant pathology laboratory or a plant clinic? == | |||
| To open a plant clinic or a plant pathology laboratory; | |||
| * 1. What kind of biohazard management training required prior to open the laboratory? | |||
| * 2. Who certifies the plant pathology laboratory? | |||
| * 3. Who inspects the laboratory for monitoring whether biosafety is being maintained properly and quality control of experiments? How to request an inspection? | |||
| * 4. Who investgates or receive complaints if a possible violation of biosafety occurs? | |||
| ] (]) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{agree|I agree too.}} After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —] (]) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Sending or Transport of cultures or samples == | |||
| == Plagiarism in the ] section == | |||
| To send a microbial culture or organ sample; what are the rules and regulations for sending by post/ by courier/ in-person | |||
| This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Misplaced Pages is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is ].--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * 1. Sending within country (say one university to another), | |||
| == New(ish) source and more == | |||
| * 2. Sending from 1 country to another, | |||
| is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; 's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. ] (]) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| * 3. What kind of certification/ tickets/ stickers/ badges to stick on the parcel? | |||
| == Orphaned references in ] == | |||
| * 4. What are safe methods to pack the samples and prepare the envelop? | |||
| I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article. | |||
| * 5. For an unidentified sample being sent for identification say for DNA isolation or PCR or sequencing, what would be the biosafety level? | |||
| <b>Reference named "feldman07":</b><ul> | |||
| * 6. Who (person)/ which institute is eligible to send cultures and who is the authority to give a biosafety level and/or a sending ticket or certification to the parcel containing live culture/organ for being sent or transferred? | |||
| <li>From ]: {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/520539 |title=Dedication: Jim Orzechowski (1944–2003) and Michael Kiley (1942–2004) |year=2007 |last1=Feldmann |first1=Heinz |last2=Geisbert |first2=Thomas |last3=Kawaoka |first3=Yoshihiro |last4=Johnson |first4=Karl M. |journal=The Journal of Infectious Diseases |volume=196 |pages=S127–S128 }}</li> | |||
| <li>From ]: {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/520539}}</li> | |||
| </ul> | |||
| I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. <small>Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs.</small> ]] 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * 7. What are instructions for bringing pathological samples from one place to another (say home to clinic/ clinic to another clinic) | |||
| == AI upscaled image == | |||
| ] (]) 11:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Safety concerns == | |||
| It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? ] (]) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The section “safety concerns” only discusses issues in United States. Should it be expanded to include other countries or rephrased/rewritten to simply state to the effect of “concerns have been raised in the United States that there is no agency responsible for oversight “ ] (]) 21:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biosafety level article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Listing BSL-3 Sites
Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.51.113 (talk • contribs) 2012-08-24T14:29:56
I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. Artur The Third (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree too. After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Plagiarism in the Safety Concerns section
This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Misplaced Pages is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism.--Shibbolethink 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
New(ish) source and more
This is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; here's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. 109.119.248.146 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Biosafety level
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Biosafety level's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "feldman07":
- From Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health: Feldmann, Heinz; Geisbert, Thomas; Kawaoka, Yoshihiro; Johnson, Karl M. (2007). "Dedication: Jim Orzechowski (1944–2003) and Michael Kiley (1942–2004)". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 196: S127–S128. doi:10.1086/520539.
- From National Microbiology Laboratory: . doi:10.1086/520539.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
AI upscaled image
It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? Polinet68 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: