From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal Gut flora is part of WikiProject Microbiology, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microbiology and microbiology-related topics. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within microbiology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Request for cleanup of superfluous citations

Do we really need all these citations peppered about? I know scholar.google.com is great and all, but I utilize a text-to-speech engine, and the numerous citations account for a large percentage of the actual text in this article and generally muddy-up the readability of this intriguing subject and the informative wikipedia article. Is there a nicer/cleaner way to present these citations? Simply having the links at the end of the article seems to me the standard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.192.52.26 (talk • contribs) .

Go ahead, be bold! Some citations are in the middle of sentences because the source only discusses that part of the sentence, but you're right, it does make it harder and more annoying to read. I used the Harvard ref style rather than footnotes because the footnotes are automatically numbered and won't work for sources cited multiple times. Maybe problematic sentences could be split into two or some of the citations could be removed entirely. Go ahead and do whatever you feel is necessary to improve the article. delldot | talk 00:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• I added the citation style template. The referencing is appaling; it reads like an investigative report, not an encyclopedic article. In dire need of cleanup. Will do it myself if I get the time. TydeNet 16:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• All done. Also, some pictures might be nice, considering the length of the article. TydeNet 05:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It certainly looks nicer and is easier to read now, but I'm not sure that removing all in-line citations is the right thing to do here. My concerns are that you can't tell what information is referenced and what isn't. If someone adds information into the article, it won't be possible to tell which info needs fact checking and which does not. I do agree, though, that the citations were excessive and annoying. Maybe if we cite a single article after the less well-established facts? Or change to the footnote style? What do you think about these concerns and ideas? delldot | talk 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• If we keep track of recent changes we will be able to force the verification of added material if necessary. Shouldn't be a problem. I like your idea of adding citations to certain less-established claims or the result of reports, however it should be done as discreetly as possible. Footnoting is a good idea; adding in-page links to the references section could be done quite nicely. Eg: "Bacteria X is more harmful than Bacteria Y" , (reference name). Introduce your own ideas as you see fit. TydeNet 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

After reading the article, I am still unsure as to where the bacteria that make up the gut flora come from. Is it neonatal, from breast milk, or carried in by food? Or perhaps the source is still unknown. Mystyc1 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Strike-through text