17:5117:51, 21 April 2022diffhist−1,974
Fluazifop
→Usage: Removing a paragraph containing general information about US law wrt pesticide usage, as it's too general for specific articles. E.g. we wouldn't want that exact same text to appear in every usage section in every article about pesticides, insecticides, etc.
03:2203:22, 3 January 2020diffhist−489
Boulder, Colorado
→Politics and government: (a) WP:OR None of the sources cited support the claim that Boulder has "increasingly chosen conservative representation." At the very most, these sources say that NIMBYism is conservative and only briefly mention a NIMBY movement in Boulder. This could support a very narrow claim about NIMBYism specifically, but not a claim about a trend toward conservative representation. (b) WP:RS :: these are subjective op-eds and cannot support factual claims
01:5801:58, 30 July 2018diffhist−211
Cloud seeding
→Effectiveness: Rewrite section: 1. To better narrate the current state of evidence. 2. To be more clear about the current state of evidence. 3. To improve encyclopedic tone
01:1501:15, 30 July 2018diffhist+7
Cloud seeding
→top: Considering that we later say, "Cloud seeding has never been statistically proven to work," I think it makes sense to temper the language of the lead
17:5117:51, 21 April 2022diffhist−1,974
Fluazifop
→Usage: Removing a paragraph containing general information about US law wrt pesticide usage, as it's too general for specific articles. E.g. we wouldn't want that exact same text to appear in every usage section in every article about pesticides, insecticides, etc.
03:2203:22, 3 January 2020diffhist−489
Boulder, Colorado
→Politics and government: (a) WP:OR None of the sources cited support the claim that Boulder has "increasingly chosen conservative representation." At the very most, these sources say that NIMBYism is conservative and only briefly mention a NIMBY movement in Boulder. This could support a very narrow claim about NIMBYism specifically, but not a claim about a trend toward conservative representation. (b) WP:RS :: these are subjective op-eds and cannot support factual claims
01:5801:58, 30 July 2018diffhist−211
Cloud seeding
→Effectiveness: Rewrite section: 1. To better narrate the current state of evidence. 2. To be more clear about the current state of evidence. 3. To improve encyclopedic tone
01:1501:15, 30 July 2018diffhist+7
Cloud seeding
→top: Considering that we later say, "Cloud seeding has never been statistically proven to work," I think it makes sense to temper the language of the lead