Talk:Masonic Medical Research Institute

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 August 2016 by reviewer Anne Delong (talk · contribs).

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

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Paucity of sources for "Scientific achievements"

A section that is central to the notability of this article and which (if the article's subject is indeed notable) should be the easiest section to source using high-quality secondary sources is the Scientific achievements. Each of the listed achievements should have a citation to the WP:MEDRS yet they are almost completely lacking. — soupvector (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

soupvector, the section likely would not be difficult to substantiate by someone who has access to medical journals and who understands them, but as far as I know, no one has tried. The inexperienced editor who created the draft didn't realize that the references should be to articles not written by the institute staff, and I have a poor understanding of biology.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not easy due to the way it's been written - it's very promotional and tends to conflate basic findings (which are cited in MEDRS like PMID 21833514) with therapeutic inferences that are not as easily sourced. Will need a complete rewrite - something for which I don't have time at the moment. Perhaps someone else will take a stab before I can - but I'll try to return. — soupvector (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the theraputic influences could just be removed until someone finds references. soupvector, there was already a mention of the controversy you added in the article, Perhaps you would like to combine the two sentences and remove any duplication.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of fishing. I'll take a stab when I get a chance. Thanks for pointing out the duplication, which I've self-reverted. — soupvector (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]