Talk:British Pharmacopoeia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	British Pharmacopoeia is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale.

[edit] Edit by the BP's Editor

Whilst I appreciate User:Vallenderm from this edit that you state "Expanded by the Editor in Chief of the British Pharmacopoeia Mrs Matilda Vallender (matilda.vallender@mhra.gsi.gov.uk) to reflect the current rage of products and services provided by the BP", normally one is not meant to edit articles about topics or products one is personally involved with, please see the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I appreciate though your openness in indicating who you are :-)

You obviously will have detailed knowledge on the BP, and thus will be a great source for improving both this and a number of other wikipedia articles. Let me highlight some policies, else your edits potentially risk being reverted as biased or promotional (for the BP). The issues are that all information in an encyclopaedia must be WP:Cited from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify. As an involved party, you risk being seen as lacking objectivity and WP:Neutral point of view.

As an example, the current version includes the sentence "Now used in over 100 countries with exposure in most continents of the world, the British Pharmacopoeia sets the standard for pharmaceutical compliance across the globe". Now whilst this may be true (and indeed as a Brit I too would like to think so), but without citing a source for the opinion that it "sets the standard", this seems like promotional WP:Peacocking, and I suspect our American editors will have a differing view on the relative merit of their own pharmacopoeiae :-)

In general as an involved party it is probably better to raise possible missing information here on the articles talk page, and then let another unconnected editor decide whether or not to update the article; again please look at the help offered at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Please do not take any of this to be trying to bite the newcomer, we really do welcome your help and expertise. If you need any help with wikipedia, marking up text or adding citations, do please ask. I will for now step back and let you have a chance to review the above points and consider how you wish to complete your current updating of the article, before returning to copyedit the wikistyling and review the changes later :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear David

I take your points and have just edited the article. Thank you for giving good editorial guidance so nicely. I think however that User:Vallenderm ought to be regarded as an authoritative source of information on the topic despite potential conflicts of interest, and your note above suggests to me that you would agree in principle with that. Do my edits do sufficient justice to your concerns?

Yours Ddruk 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)