Talk:Phyllanthus urinaria

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Granateple in topic Potential references

Potential references edit

From [1]. See discussion: --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply


Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

This review is meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject. The review is placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The review in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, it is scholarly and peer-reviewed, and it is published in an academic journal. Granateple (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply