Talk:Gut microbiota: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:34, 29 August 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microbiology B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for cleanup of superfluous citations

Do we really need all these citations peppered about? I know scholar.google.com is great and all, but I utilize a text-to-speech engine, and the numerous citations account for a large percentage of the actual text in this article and generally muddy-up the readability of this intriguing subject and the informative wikipedia article. Is there a nicer/cleaner way to present these citations? Simply having the links at the end of the article seems to me the standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.192.52.26 (talk • contribs) .

Go ahead, be bold! Some citations are in the middle of sentences because the source only discusses that part of the sentence, but you're right, it does make it harder and more annoying to read. I used the Harvard ref style rather than footnotes because the footnotes are automatically numbered and won't work for sources cited multiple times. Maybe problematic sentences could be split into two or some of the citations could be removed entirely. Go ahead and do whatever you feel is necessary to improve the article. delldot | talk 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation style template. The referencing is appaling; it reads like an investigative report, not an encyclopedic article. In dire need of cleanup. Will do it myself if I get the time. TydeNet 16:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Also, some pictures might be nice, considering the length of the article. TydeNet 05:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly looks nicer and is easier to read now, but I'm not sure that removing all in-line citations is the right thing to do here. My concerns are that you can't tell what information is referenced and what isn't. If someone adds information into the article, it won't be possible to tell which info needs fact checking and which does not. I do agree, though, that the citations were excessive and annoying. Maybe if we cite a single article after the less well-established facts? Or change to the footnote style? What do you think about these concerns and ideas? delldot | talk 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep track of recent changes we will be able to force the verification of added material if necessary. Shouldn't be a problem. I like your idea of adding citations to certain less-established claims or the result of reports, however it should be done as discreetly as possible. Footnoting is a good idea; adding in-page links to the references section could be done quite nicely. Eg: "Bacteria X is more harmful than Bacteria Y" , (reference name). Introduce your own ideas as you see fit. TydeNet 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

After reading the article, I am still unsure as to where the bacteria that make up the gut flora come from. Is it neonatal, from breast milk, or carried in by food? Or perhaps the source is still unknown. Mystyc1 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is all the source syou mentioned and countless others. They seem to be species which evolved and adapted to the human body, perhaps the body of other organisms. But to answer your question again: I am quite sure by reading the article that they are obtained from pretty much anything which has had previous contact with them, as vague as that may sound. Zulu Inuoe 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of human and bacterial cells

I looked for information of how many bacterial cells is there in my gut. Multiplying of 10^13 (human body) by 10 is 10^14, but is this result true? I was told I have 5 million red cells in 1 mm3 of my blood. It means 5E09 in 1 cm3 and 5E12 in one liter. If I have 4 liters of blood (as I hope), it means I have 2E13 cells in blood alone. What about muscle cells, fat, skin, brain etc.? What should I multiply by 10? Certainly not 10^13. Accidental visitor.89.76.173.244 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes

These articles might be useful for this page: PMID 16033867, PMID 17183309, and PMID 17183312. Ninjatacoshell 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H Pylori

H pylori can be found in the gut, but as far as I can tell, neither H pylori or its genus are mentioned in this article. Due to the notability of H Pylori, its prevalence, and its status as a carcinogen, shouldn't at least some mention be made?? - Concerned unsigned editor - July 30, 2007