m →Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015: Mark as answered - by another |
→General Sense of Bias: new section |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::{{ping|Sierrafourteen}} [[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> —[[User:Skyllfully|Skyllfully]] <sup>([[User_talk:Skyllfully|talk]]</sup> | <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Skyllfully|contribs]])</sub> 06:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |
::{{ping|Sierrafourteen}} [[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> —[[User:Skyllfully|Skyllfully]] <sup>([[User_talk:Skyllfully|talk]]</sup> | <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Skyllfully|contribs]])</sub> 06:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
== General Sense of Bias == |
|||
This is the first time that i have come across this article, and i want to make the very basic observation that i see this article as a whole as bent on slamming Vani Hari. It appears to be weighted in an extremely lopsided way toward criticism of her, as if it is written by people who really have it out for her. It seems to be a collection of all the bad things one could allege about Food Babe, and seems to have been edited with this purpose in mind, which indicates editing with a point of view, or a biased agenda. This is a biography of a living person page, and in that light, editors are required to take special care to ensure that this page is edited with a neutral point of view, and i certainly do ''not'' see that care being taken here. This is my first viewing of this page, and this is my sincere observation. I am somewhat familiar with the whole to-do about Food Babe and the recent movement among the self-appointed "skeptic" movement to denounce and denigrate here, and i think that this movement has occupied this article about Food Babe, which is something that is in violation of Wikipedia goals and spirit. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:50, 16 September 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lede as summary
The only noticeable thing lacking from this article is having the lede be a proper summary of the information in the article. The main question to ask, I suppose, is what length of lede is appropriate for this length of article. I would think one long paragraph would do it, though it would probably look better and flow stylistically more as two shorter paragraphs. What do you all think? SilverserenC 19:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with it apart from noting that her claims have been strongly criticised by scientists - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015
A reference is missing from the wiki page: https://archive.is/SmN0x
It should be in the last paragraph of the section "Promotion of Pseudoscience"
Also a link to one of her blogs on air quality in airplanes: http://www.freezepage.com/1415667665TBMRBWICKU
Sierrafourteen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Sierrafourteen (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Links to archive.is get systematically removed for some annoying reason, even when encyclopedically useful - David Gerard (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Sierrafourteen: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 06:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
General Sense of Bias
This is the first time that i have come across this article, and i want to make the very basic observation that i see this article as a whole as bent on slamming Vani Hari. It appears to be weighted in an extremely lopsided way toward criticism of her, as if it is written by people who really have it out for her. It seems to be a collection of all the bad things one could allege about Food Babe, and seems to have been edited with this purpose in mind, which indicates editing with a point of view, or a biased agenda. This is a biography of a living person page, and in that light, editors are required to take special care to ensure that this page is edited with a neutral point of view, and i certainly do not see that care being taken here. This is my first viewing of this page, and this is my sincere observation. I am somewhat familiar with the whole to-do about Food Babe and the recent movement among the self-appointed "skeptic" movement to denounce and denigrate here, and i think that this movement has occupied this article about Food Babe, which is something that is in violation of Wikipedia goals and spirit. SageRad (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)