This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Similar to issues raised over there for an antibody, this article contains numerous unsourced statements throughout; in addition, there are unverifiable statements sourced only to primary sources like patents that may have been used during original research. -- Scray (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References and citations have been provided for most of the statements. I think that the article is much improved and more complete as a reference for readers. Please examine the editing and remove the warning sign at the top of the article.PeaceRock (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PeaceRock, do you have any financial relationship with Tanox? You seem to have added large amounts of promotional material to this entry and to the Omalizumab entry. That does not necessarily disqualify you from writing the entry, but you should disclose it.
One of the problems with this entry is that there are a lot of trivial details without regard to what's important and what isn't. I really don't care about the Changs' fundraising efforts (and I don't think most people care). I am primarily interested in what their products are and why they are useful. I like The Scientist but things that were important in 1991 are no longer important today.
