Talk:Phasor approach to fluorescence lifetime and spectral imaging

Fascinating topic, but thank g-d for my physics background. The article shows consistently poor quality English grammar, making it difficult in many places to understand what was actually attempted to communicate. The equations are incorrect at the outset -- the notions are correct, but assumptions had to be made to bring understanding into conformity with the equational results provided. These kinds of assumptions should have been stated at the outset. My physics background allowed me to weave a mental thread through the text to arrive at a true understanding. I am not accustomed to that kind of effort on Wikipedia, and it represents, in my view, a radical departure from the level of quality I had come to expect from Wikipedia. I'm sure other non-physicist readers will simply gloss over and leave the page with little additional understanding. Pretty pictures, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.77.170 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod

The topic seems notable. Here are three ref independent of the putative primary author:

All of these are peer reviewed and reliable, in addition to two in the article that may be by the primary author. There are many more references at Google Scholar--just search for 'phasor approach to fluorescence lifetime microscopy'. Because the lack of notability is not uncontroversial, I am deprodding. I agree that there are some CoI issues nere and possible non-neutrality. But if the topic is notable, fixing this is a matter of editing, not deletion; see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for associated policy. --Mark viking (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude: గర్వం

గర్వం తలకెక్కితే ఒక్క సారి స్మశానం వైపు చూడు అక్కడ నీకంటే గొప్పవాళ్ళు మట్టిలో కలిసిపోయారు YEHOSHUVA PIKKI (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]