Talk:Medical laboratory scientist

Cleaning Suggestions

I'm a former Med-Tech and I've been revising this page over the past few months. I'm new at this, so specific comments and suggestions (e.g. below) are appreciated.BloodGuru 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV & Nonencyclopedic entries

Removed/edited sections for non-neutral POV and nonencyclopedic information. Also removed stub tags as someone has kindly given us a great deal of information. While more information is welcome and encouraged to be submitted, please ensure you comply with Wikipedia's rules. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedlav (talk • contribs) 08:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Information is VERY american and is not necesssarily accurate for other countries. A notation to this effect would be useful. Links to professional associations / licenture bodies in various countries would be valuable (e.g. www.csmls.org in Canada) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.202.182 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

There is a general need for cleanup on this article. As it stands right now it needs heavy reoranization to make the information flow more coherantly. This includes changing headings and moving information around. The intro is needs to be rewritten to remove POV material and make it a proper summary of the article. The article seems to contain link spam as the list of links at the bottom seems overly large and has no descriptions as to what they refer to or why they aresignificant. Article also needs sourcing. Would someone with some background give it a look over? Is Medical Technologist a general term for this type of health professional? Is it only used by one health care company? Some clarification on this would help. --Lendorien 14:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've reorganized the sections a bit to try to make it more thematically coherant. Still needs expert attention. As a side note, a look at a lot of the links makes me think that most could be culled. Many seem to be links to medical technology companies and not directly related to the subject matter.--Lendorien 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've given it a bit of an overhaul: cleaned up weak writing, tightened the language to be more encyclopedic, rearranged to provide more logical flow, removed some irrelevant and redundant material, fixed a couple of links, etc. However, it still needs work, most desperately with links and references. There are only a few actual tags, but there is lots of unsupported information that needs to have references cited. Also the list of external links is completely ridiculous and needs desperately to be culled. And finally, I'm still getting a handle on Wikipedia's preferred formatting (section headings, etc) so that probably needs to be touched up as well. I may be back after I cleanse my mental palate, but for now I've done all I can with it. --edi 14:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)