Talk:Scientists announce decoy-proof Ebola antibodies

Review of revision 4667816 [Not ready]

Revision 4667816 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: "potential clinical value" does not necessarily imply cheaper, let alone "much" and it is disingenuous to do so, particularly if the source is self-deduction. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Generally, we avoid NPOV conflicts by drawing very basic conclusions: for instance, a criticised policy is "divisive" or a crying man would be "emotional". Really, what can be very obviously deduced. Also, while it would appear I have essentially stripped the article down to its bare essentials, there were many repeat sentences, or those which were plainly irrelevant—for instance, recognising Ebola is of multiple ebolaviruses is enough, and one needn't be deluged with a list of all six. However, feel free to add them somewhere else if supplementary. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4667816 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not ready: "potential clinical value" does not necessarily imply cheaper, let alone "much" and it is disingenuous to do so, particularly if the source is self-deduction. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Generally, we avoid NPOV conflicts by drawing very basic conclusions: for instance, a criticised policy is "divisive" or a crying man would be "emotional". Really, what can be very obviously deduced. Also, while it would appear I have essentially stripped the article down to its bare essentials, there were many repeat sentences, or those which were plainly irrelevant—for instance, recognising Ebola is of multiple ebolaviruses is enough, and one needn't be deluged with a list of all six. However, feel free to add them somewhere else if supplementary. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@JJLiu112: I can tell you think there's at least one NPOV issue in this article but I can't tell what or where you think it is. The "so the medicine could be cheaper" is not my own conclusion. As marked, it comes from Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News: [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I checked it properly, then. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4667923 [Passed]

Revision 4667923 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4667923 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.