Talk:Biosafety level

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biosafety level article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1: 14 days

Medicine High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Paul Rincon (April 16, 2020). "Coronavirus: Is there any evidence for lab release theory?". BBC News. Wikipedia lists over 50 [BSL-4 labs] around the world [...] but there is no authoritative list.

Listing BSL-3 Sites

Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.51.113 (talk • contribs) 2012-08-24T14:29:56‎

I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. Artur The Third (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in the Safety Concerns section

This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Wikipedia is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Plagiarism.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New(ish) source and more

This is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; here's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. 109.119.248.146 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Biosafety level

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Biosafety level's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "feldman07":

From Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health: Feldmann, Heinz; Geisbert, Thomas; Kawaoka, Yoshihiro; Johnson, Karl M. (2007). "Dedication: Jim Orzechowski (1944–2003) and Michael Kiley (1942–2004)". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 196: S127–S128. doi:10.1086/520539.
From National Microbiology Laboratory: . doi:10.1086/520539. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AI upscaled image

It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? Polinet68 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]