Talk:Hypersegmented neutrophil: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:20, 17 January 2020

Physiology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of cells.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove technical flag

I think this is approachable now. Can we remove the "too technical" flag? Chaldor (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersegmented Neutrophil's

I have a source (see below) that states "A cell with more than five lobs is considered abnormal and referred to as a hypersegmented neutrophil." The wiki says 5 or more, so... to update or not to update... (please forgive me... I've forgot how to cite, so here's everything!) "Clinical Laboratory Hematology" by Shirlyb B. McKenzie and J. Lynne Williams - 2nd edition - Copyright 2010 - ISBN-13: 978-0-13-513732-1 24.177.203.132 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll put this in pending more cites. I believe this is one of those things where standards are not uniform on the cut-off. S B H arris 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy/race-based medicine

Is the tag calling into question the claim that blacks have greater neutrophil segmentation than whites? I believe that the current wording in the article is vague and can be improved, but if there is actually a complaint about the factual accuracy of the claim, I'd like to see some counterevidence. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The citations given match up, as #3 states in its abstract that:

A surprising, incidental observation was that blacks had significantly greater neutrophil segmentation by both criteria than did whites and others. This difference was unrelated to cobalamin or folate status.

The other citation (#4) reads:

Neutrophil segmentation is normally greater in blacks than in whites.

Then it gives a reference which in on the online version (I tried my best but haven't been able to find it, could be because I'm trying to find it using my mobile!). Despite this, the bottom line is that there are two apparently reliable sources for this statement, so I don't know why the tag is on there either...

I'd suggest cleaning up the wording then removing the tag, with a clear edit summary. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 : The other citation (#4) reads:
-{{Quote|text=Neutrophil segmentation is normally greater in blacks than in whites.}}
+:{{Quote|text=Neutrophil segmentation is normally greater in blacks than in whites.}}
-: Then it gives a reference which in on the online version (I tried my best but haven't been able to find it, could be because I'm trying to find it using my mobile!).  Despite this, the bottom line is that there are two apparently reliable sources for this statement, so I don't know why the tag is on there either...  I'd suggest cleaning up the wording then removing the tag, with a clear edit summary.   [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue-Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 00:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
+:Then it gives a reference which in on the online version (I tried my best but haven't been able to find it, could be because I'm trying to find it using my mobile!).  Despite this, the bottom line is that there are two apparently reliable sources for this statement, so I don't know why the tag is on there either...
+:I'd suggest cleaning up the wording then removing the tag, with a clear edit summary.   [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue-Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 00:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)