Talk:Rigid line inclusion

Too much emphasis of Bigoni's research

The references from the Bigoni group make up 5 of 7 references + the only external link to his lab. If one looks at the edits to this article, then 90% of the content is from 3 people which are clearly all in this environment (if not partially the same or some of his students). I'd say that this article might be a bit biassed. (Independent of the quality of science Bigoni is doing, this here is no personal attack if you read this. I'm totally neutral, have never heard of your name before, don't work in this area, just stumbled over this article and thought that it is definitely not neutral.) Even if Bigoni might be big in this area, a topic which has its oldest reference of 1950 should have some more diverse references than 2x 50 year old basics and then 5x from one research group. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DUE#Due_and_undue_weight or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BALANCE#Balance or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors or so. I'll add some point of view bias check template for the article. Kind regards, Peterthewall (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For there to be a lack of neutrality, there has to be some disagreement about rigid line inclusions that the article doesn't cover, though; it's entirely plausible that many sources relate to Bigoni just because because not a lot of people have studied rigid-line inclusions. If you really think something is wrong here, you could use Template:Refimprove or question whether the topic is notable enough to rate its own article, but, again, I think to question its neutrality you need some sign there's another side that's not being covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.134.151 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]