| Revision as of 05:33, 8 April 2016 editAjpolino (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators17,028 edits →Troubled by unreferenced entries in tables: Removed Belarus lab from BSL-4 list. Comments here.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024 edit undoPolinet68 (talk | contribs)4 edits →AI upscaled image: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 19 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}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
| |archive = Talk:Biosafety level/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Biosafety level/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{press|title=Coronavirus: Is there any evidence for lab release theory?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52318539|author=Paul Rincon|org=]|date=April 16, 2020|quote=Misplaced Pages lists over 50 around the world but there is no authoritative list.}} | |||
| == Listing BSL-3 Sites == | == Listing BSL-3 Sites == | ||
| Line 18: | 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) | |||
| == India - Azad Dedicates Asia’s First BIO-Safety Level –IV Laboratory to the Nation == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Read here on GoI official post : http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91227 | |||
| == Plagiarism in the ] section == | |||
| "Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad dedicated to the Nation the Asia’s First Bio-Safety Level-IV Laboratory established by ICMR with support from Department of Science & Technology at Pune today." | |||
| 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) | |||
| The BSL-IV list is highly inaccurate then it seems.Sarindam7 17:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == New(ish) source and more == | |||
| : It seems that, by default, that big table is sorted by location. The Pune lab was added at the top, out of alphabetical order. Any objections to me moving it into position next to the other three listed labs in India? ] (]) 00:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sounds good to me! JHCaufield - ] - 14:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Done. ] (]) 01:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Newer reference for BSL-4 locations == | |||
| == Orphaned references in ] == | |||
| I spotted on my travels. Might be useful to run through and update the list of BSL-4s. ] (]) 14:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks - that looks useful. JHCaufield - ] - 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == Troubled by unreferenced entries in tables == | |||
| <b>Reference named "feldman07":</b><ul> | |||
| I recently handled an OTRS request in which we were asked to remove an entry from the table. I noted that the entry had no reference so I removed it. I note that many other entries are not supported by references. | |||
| <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) | |||
| This is not exactly a benign list like a list of notable people in a town. It is my opinion that we should not have entries in this list that are not supported by reliable sources. Does anyone disagree? | |||
| == AI upscaled image == | |||
| I am not a regular editor of this page and do not have the time to sort through it. Unless there is a good reason for violating the normal guidelines that material included should be referenced, I urge someone to go through and remove all of the entries in the tables that are not referenced. If they happen to be correct they can be added with references.--]] 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Hm. Yes good point. I'll start going through some of them. I'll post here the ones that I can't find reference for so that if someone knows better they can more easily add it back! ] (]) 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *], ], ], ]. Did some digging and couldn't find anything definitive. It's listed in on ] but no source is given here which made me fear this article may have been where they found that information. The website notes that they have "high containment laboratories registered and approved by the Department of Agriculture and The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator" but I couldn't find any record of whether or not those laboratories were indeed BSL-4. They do have some contact info, so if anyone is interested perhaps they could call or email and get a definitive answer. Also saw a reference to a Queensland Health BSL-4 lab but it's not clear if it's the Virology lab in particular they're referring to, or where they found that information. So at this point, I'm taking it off the list, but I left all this stuff here in case anyone wants to pick up the trail! Good luck! ] (]) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *University of Queensland - Sir Albert Sakzewski Virus Research Centre (SASVRC) Royal Women's Hospital Brisbane P3 (BL3),], ], ]. I'm not sure if the note at the end of this one means it has BSL-3 space but not BSL-4 space. Regardless, I couldn't find any source to back up inclusion on the list. doesn't mention any work specifically done at BSL-4, nor is the lab mentioned in from ] or the mentioned above. So I'm stumped at this point. Removing the entry from the list for now. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can intercede ] (]) 03:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *], ], ]. Me again. Ok I can't find anything about BSL-4 space here. has nothing on the topic. I saw the lab mentioned but the capability of the lab is not mentioned. There's a few recent papers listed on the institution's but none of them would obviously require BSL-4 space that I know of. So I'm stumped. Removing it from the list for now. ] (]) 05:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Rationale Section? == | |||
| 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) | |||
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: