User talk:Lthoms11

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lthoms11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So...[edit]

About your efforts, which I really appreciate !!) to improve the Glucagon-like peptide-1 peptide article.

We call the part of the article above the table of contents, the "lead". What that section is for, is described in WP:LEAD. Briefly, it just summarizes the body of the article. You don't need citations in the lead -- all the lead is doing is summarizing the body. There should be no content, and no sources, in the lead, that are not already in the body.
For pretty much any topic in Wikipedia, there is a WP:Wikiproject that takes care of it. Most every Wikirproject has style guidelines that govern how the the article should be structured, as well as other style matters. You can find the relevant Wikiproject by looking at the Talk page - there will generally be a banner at the top of the page, that lists the relevant projects. This article is "under" the molecular and cellular biology, neuroscience, medicine wikiprojects. Probably the most relevant style guideline for the sectioning is this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology/Style guide (gene and protein articles).
In general, we always prefer secondary sources. For scientific matters, this means literature reviews in the scientific literature or book chapters in edited books; tertiary sources like textbooks are great too. There are very many reasons for this, but it is deep in the guts of Wikipedia. Most every source you added was a primary source - a paper where research results are presented. I am guessing you are a scientist or are studying science - there is a big temptation to do that - to kind of write your own review article here in Wikipedia. But we don't do that here.
Along those lines, for content like "In 1932, Jean La Barre introduced the word incretin, acronym of intestine secretion insulin, for a purified hypoglycaemia-inducing substance extracted from the upper gut mucosa. Furthermore, La Barre emphasised the potential of incretin for treatment of diabetes patients." ... the right kind of source for that, is not the 1932 paper where La Barre did that; his paper cannot be evidence for that claim that he introduced the term in that paper - you need a source that says that. (this is part of why we always use secondary sources). It is kind of fun and interesting to include the 1932 paper where did that, but another source is needed to actually verify the content. Does that make sense?

I hope all that makes sense. You might find the WP:EXPERT essay useful as well, to help you get oriented to how this strange place works.... Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Proglucagon expression.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Proglucagon expression.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]