Talk:Twinject

is the press release in the "Canada" section relevant to the article?

The Canada section appears to unbalance the article and most of it is not needed and could be better served with a link to a reliable source. Not sure that the retail price is encyclopedic. I would suggest that most of the content in pruned out. Another minor point the article lead reads that this is an article about a trademark although it appears to be about a medical product, perhaps consider re-writting the lead to make that clear. The article also appears to give medical advice and guidance on how to operate the device, note this an encylcopedia and is not a substitute for a guide book or instruction leaflet or to give medical advice, I would suggest dossage, contraindications, usage and storage sections should be deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article seems overly commercial to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no one seems to be objecting to a re-write, why did you open an RfC instead of just fixing it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]