Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I think some of the sections (especially the funding section) are far too long and are WP:UNDUE. The article, especially about such a major topic, should be a broad overview of the topic, whereas currently it seems to be a collection of all the negative articles that certain editors can find.
Thanks, Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tom (LT)
editI agree with your assessment, Absolutelypuremilk, and would support the removal of vast chunks of text... this article reads like a newspaper piece and has far too much quoting and original synthesis (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). So I support the truncation and summary of tracts of text as you propose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)