22:4622:46, 1 July 2016diffhist−67
Michael Greger
→Career and advocacy: Hmm, still not sure I'm satisfied (I can see from the talk page this is a touchy subject). But I thought I could make that sentence more concise. Still, I'm open to suggestions/further revisions as necessary.Tag: Visual edit
22:4222:42, 1 July 2016diffhist+178
Michael Greger
Not sure if I quite have this right yet. The end of the sentence I removed in the last edit deserved to be removed, but I also felt the context of the quote could be illuminating. But it was too large to be in the intro, I felt. Suggestions are welcome.Tag: Visual edit
22:3122:31, 1 July 2016diffhist−48
Michael Greger
"even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" seemed out of place and made the sentence choppy. Perhaps an activist can add it back in another way that flows more smoothly.Tag: Visual edit
22:2822:28, 1 July 2016diffhist+10
Michael Greger
→Career and advocacy: Previously, the quotation had some ambiguity (to whom is "them" referring to?). This edit sidesteps the issue by quoting a different part of her article, and preserves the criticism.
22:4622:46, 1 July 2016diffhist−67
Michael Greger
→Career and advocacy: Hmm, still not sure I'm satisfied (I can see from the talk page this is a touchy subject). But I thought I could make that sentence more concise. Still, I'm open to suggestions/further revisions as necessary.Tag: Visual edit
22:4222:42, 1 July 2016diffhist+178
Michael Greger
Not sure if I quite have this right yet. The end of the sentence I removed in the last edit deserved to be removed, but I also felt the context of the quote could be illuminating. But it was too large to be in the intro, I felt. Suggestions are welcome.Tag: Visual edit
22:3122:31, 1 July 2016diffhist−48
Michael Greger
"even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" seemed out of place and made the sentence choppy. Perhaps an activist can add it back in another way that flows more smoothly.Tag: Visual edit
22:2822:28, 1 July 2016diffhist+10
Michael Greger
→Career and advocacy: Previously, the quotation had some ambiguity (to whom is "them" referring to?). This edit sidesteps the issue by quoting a different part of her article, and preserves the criticism.