Talk:Biosafety level

message: Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.51.113 (talk • contribs) 2012-08-24T14:29:56‎
I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. Artur The Third (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing BSL-3 Sites 

message: This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Wikipedia is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Plagiarism.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism in the [[Biosafety_level#Safety_concerns|Safety Concerns]] section 

message: This is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; here's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. 109.119.248.146 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New(ish) source and more 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Biosafety level's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "feldman07":
From Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health: 
From National Microbiology Laboratory: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Biosafety level]] 

message: It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? Polinet68 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI upscaled image