Talk:Prenetics
Add topicPrevious Draft
[edit]I had this sitting in my sandbox space and decided today to see if I could move it into mainspace. I found there was an existing AfC rejection at Draft:Prenetics. The rejection was based on promotional language, then on lack of sourcing. Having looked at that draft, I don't really see the promotional language but I haven't been back through the prior drafts.
In my opinion that draft was not worth building upon since it focused mainly on corporate matters like listing and funding. There were a few sources which I added here, but otherwise this is an independently created article. I think this article is adequately sourced and passes NCORP.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have no WP:COI and am not compensated for this. If you have concerns let me know.
Recent additions and reverts
[edit]@1705aes has attempted several times to include large blocks of text without inline citations into this article. @Mfield, @Cassiopeia, and @TurboSuperA+ been removing those blocks of text. I see four add/revert cycles. I'm not going to say at this point this is edit warring by anyone but it's completely unproductive.
It seems to me that the text added initially was poorly sourced, something which is hard to assess as there are no inline citations (of which more below). For example this paragraph appears to be cited to an undated marketing webpage as if it's from an article with a publication date:
The company analyzes over 3 million genetic data points using targeted Next Generation Sequencing technology on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 system, achieving 99.9% analytical accuracy[1]. All samples are processed in Prenetics' internationally accredited laboratory. CircleDNA's NGS technology can detect unknown genetic variations that traditional genotyping methods may overlook, providing genetic insights than standard microarray-based tests which analyze only 600,000 data points[2].
That webpage does not support the entire citation, where it does it's because the language is paraphrased/copied from the marketing materials, and the company lacks the kind of independence needed to make qualitative these claims. And because the edits paraphrase marketing materials it's promotional in tone.
The use of inline citations with hyperlinks to the source material is not strictly required, but I think it's expected if the material is online (as with the example above).
In my opinion, if there is a problem with the article that can be dealt with by incremental changes with proper citations, go for it. Anything more than that should be raised on this talk page. Oblivy (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oblivy Good day. Please note that any changes or added content need to be supported by independent, reliable source for verification which is the core policy of Wikipedia. The editor who adds or changes the content, including the editor who re-add the removed unsourced content, is the one who need to provide the supporting source - see WP:BURDEN. The editor has been warmed several times and still continued to edit the same manner. As you can see, the editor has been blocked. By the way, the source in your message above is not a reliable source. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 05:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see the block. It's a good block.I'm really not trying to call out the reverting editors, including you, just trying to be even-handed. IMHO under WP:BRD this should have been sent to the talk page at least two reverts ago, but that's not meant as an assignment of blame. If they come back as a sock we have this talk page to send them to. Oblivy (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)