 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Bold edit edit
I have re-edited a large bold series of edits, for which thanks to Msnewell. I have used large elements of this contribution. I have heavily abbreviated them for clarity and brevity, and, I hope, restored a neutral point of view; Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor an essay. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Quotes in citations edit
I noticed that all the quotes in the citations have been removed. Is there a reason for this? My take is that a sentence or two in the cite itself greatly helps establish verifiability and constitutes "fair use". I can't find anything in the MOS or similar wiki help pages addressing whether this is an accepted practice (either encouraged or frowned upon), although I've seen it in many many articles. Absent some policy against them or a good reason not to include them, I propose restoring them. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Makes no sense edit
"One meta-analysis of twelve studies found that those wearing a helmet were about two-thirds as likely to suffer a head injury as were those not wearing a helmet, strongly suggesting that helmets reduce the risk of head injury among skiers and snowboarders."
This sentence is contradictory, the first part suggests you are better off NOT wearing a helmet, therefore strongly suggesting the exact opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.221.224 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Would you feel the same way (that a contradiction is present) if the data found that "[...] wearing a helmet were about half as likely to suffer a head injury [...]"? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)