Talk:La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science

Australia: Victoria / Melbourne / Education Low‑importance

	Australia portal La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Buildings[edit]

The difference between 'LIMS' the institute, and 'LIMS' the buildings needs to be clarified (particularly in History section). The LIMS1 building was opened in 2013, but LIMS2 was re-purposed from an existing building, and the institute also includes Pharm/Applied Sci. in Bendigo. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logo[edit]

A logo image can only be added to the infobox if/when the draft article is accepted (requirement of 'fair use' of copyright logo). I have been given a jpg by the communications officer of LIMS which I can rescale to an appropriate size and resolution. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor declaration[edit]

The following users declare that they are professionally connected with the subject of this article:

Evolution and evolvability · Ftlay · Tsoaresdacos

The following efforts have been made to made to avoid bias, however we request that other editors scrutinise our writing to ensure neutrality.

Neutral language

Third party sources

Press releases only for uncontroversial points (e.g. department structure)

Notified WP:MELB, WP:EiA to check draft.
Thank you. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 08:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft reviewed[edit]

I've taken a look at this draft, and I think it's good enough to go in as an article. The only issues are the two unsourced statements, and it's generally written with a fairly neutral tone. Thanks for keeping to the facts and providing this content for use on Wikipedia. --Michael Billington (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I placed a notability tag on the article, as none of the references seem independent to me. The tag was removed by @The Drover's Wife:--could you explain the removal? --Mark viking (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark viking, not so much on notability, but there are concerns that I share about this article. Namely, the primary editor of the article to date, User:Evolution and evolvability is a post-doctoral fellow at LaTrobe Uni who also works at LIMS as a researcher. See Dr Thomas Shafee for profile information. When compared to all other Australian medical research institute articles on Wikipedia, undue importance in the LIMS article is placed on education, as opposed to research, presenting a university bias (for example, the whole section on education could/should be removed as it relates to the University, not specifically to the MRI). Having myself worked on the periphery of another MRI in Australia in an administrative, not scientific or educational role, this is not an uncommon bias as there is often a blurred line between benchtop research and clinical (or applied) research and education. Further, it would appear that the LIMS building houses education facilities (a lecture theatre or two). However, does this warrant a whole section or just a by-line in facilities? There is also undue emphasis placed on LIMS1 building. I mean, it didn't win any (R)AIA or World Architecture Awards. 5 Star Green Rating and a tool used via GBCA is not that notable. So, to paraphrase, I've made a start on editing, yet it needs revisiting. My edit was done in the context of developing consistency for all Australian MRI articles, especially re use of infoboxes (some none, others using 'non profit organization' or 'laboratory'; in progress of replacing with 'research institute' throughout), leads, and research focus. Compare, for example, WEHI with 1,100 researchers and Garvan with 600 researchers; and you will find that the use of self-published sources varies significantly between the two, reflected in article length and article tone. Rangasyd (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]