Talk:High-resolution melting analysis

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Could someone please point out the obvious flaws in the article so that I can apply the necessary changes in order to remove the "Wikify" and "Cleanup" banners ?

Unexplained removal of links[edit]

NunoAgostinh removed two links from this page without explaining why. I undid the removal and then NunoAgostinh undid my undo. Let's not get into an edit war here. Please explain why the following two links should be removed:
High Resolution Melting analysis information at gene-quantification.info

University of Southampton spinout company specialising in High Resolution Melting analysis Pengortm (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply on my talk page NunoAgostinh. I'm certainly with you on removing the second celebrity link page. However, while I agree the first is spammy looking, if you click on the links on the page for either HRM or HRM dyes you get information from multiple companies about the features of their thermocyclers or relevant HRM dyes along with references and abstracts to relevant article in the primary literature. I don't think I added this link, but have used it independently in research about HRM and considering it for lab applications. As a side point, do you know if there is a wikipedia tradition about whether these discussions are best to have over the individual's talk pages or via the article talk pages? I don't know. Pengortm (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, instead of any of those links, I think we should put only this one [1]. This link directs to the HRM information on the spammy site. What do you think? About your question, I have no idea... But I think that resolving the issue through the article's talk page lets other people know what's happening. — Nuno Agostinho • ^{(Say It!)} 15:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]