Revision as of 07:36, 16 July 2006 editEvanconway (talk | contribs)3 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:38, 16 July 2006 edit undoEvanconway (talk | contribs)3 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → |
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
**Sentences that need them - Find sentences that are debatable, controverial, or something a proponent of ] would argue with and list them as "citation needed". Then follow the previous instruction right above. |
|
**Sentences that need them - Find sentences that are debatable, controverial, or something a proponent of ] would argue with and list them as "citation needed". Then follow the previous instruction right above. |
|
*'''Add to "Facts and Statistics"''' - needs to be fact-checked and more information about organics in other countries should be added |
|
*'''Add to "Facts and Statistics"''' - needs to be fact-checked and more information about organics in other countries should be added |
|
*'''Incompetent Writing''' The author fails to define the central concepts of the article. To start, lose "in general"(P1) and state the qualities shared by ALL organic food. Otherwise, any comparisons of organic/conventional food are meaningless, and there is no way to verify that the author's concept of "organic" matches that of any of the cited sources. In its current state, this article is a weakly reasoned opinion piece which discredits the editorial process of Misplaced Pages. |
|
*'''Incompetent Writing''' The author fails to define the central concepts of the article. To start, lose "in general"(P1) and state the unique qualities shared by ALL organic food. Otherwise, any comparisons of organic/conventional food are meaningless, and there is no way to verify that the author's vague concept of "organic" matches that of any of the cited sources. In its current state, this article is a weakly reasoned opinion piece which discredits the editorial process of Misplaced Pages. |