Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
|archive = Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
Revision as of 19:53, 5 February 2020
Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
image
@QuackGuru: you reverted my edit to put an image the top of the article. If you dont like that image, please pick another one. The article should have another one, and there are plenty of options in the article below. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, regarding this request for a citation, do you disagree that the later sentences (which are referenced) support this summary sentence, or do you favor copying all the citation from the detail sentences to the end of the summary sentence? -- Beland (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
CDC images
The images copied from CDC documents are not accessible to visually impaired readers, because they are pictures of text rather than actual text. Typically this type of information is simply incorporated into the article text, and the CDC documents can be cited as a source. -- Beland (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The concerns of multiple editors at Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_4#Why_two_articles? have not been addressed. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles, especially on nicotine and aerosol, which are outside of the "Adverse effects" section of the safety article. If the current length of both articles is to be maintained, they should be split along a more logical dividing line. But I agree with the editors who commented that both articles currently contain an excessive amount of detail, and if trimmed to an appropriate length would be short enough to merge. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)