Talk:Oxford Nanopore Technologies

Quotations

I'm worried about the use of quotations in this page. It seems that fair treatment of nanopore technology would require a section discussing error rates. I will draft some content soon.

Knightrob (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151121024012/http://www.ipgroupplc.com/media-centre/ip-group-news/2015/2015-07-21.aspx to http://www.ipgroupplc.com/media-centre/ip-group-news/2015/2015-07-21.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626132328/https://nanoporetech.com/community/publications-from-the-map to https://nanoporetech.com/community/publications-from-the-map

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Style

I find the language used in this article too technical and abstruse for an encyclopedia. Do others agree? Deipnosophista (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)