This article is not well formated: There are many URLs in the text. They should either be listed as External links or as References, using the tags <ref></ref> and <references/>. -- Lucido 09:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just featured tonight on "CNN - Planet in Peril." It sounds like a huge up and coming item and I think we need and expert. Can someone tag this page for "expert needed?" Or, contribute!! Thanks! Scotty -- Scottymoze 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{ POV}} to this section, as it seems to be written from a partisan point of view, and contains political advocacy (telling readers to support particular legislative proposals). This needs to be rewritten, or removed entirely. In fact, the whole of this article represents the view of the Environmental Working Group rather than a more neutral and scientific perspective (it's worth remembering that many of the claims made about 'body burden' are not accepted by medical professionals), but this section is the worst part. Robofish ( talk) 14:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This article contains much that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, which has been the case for some time -- at least 20 months based on the warning template stating "additional citations" are needed. That is certainly a problem, but far from the only one, as I will detail below. I have written an alternative version and posted it to my userspace. The reason I do not make these changes directly at this time is because I have a potential conflict of interest in that a client of my employer is engaged on issues pertaining to this subject matter. They have provided research assistance, but the words are my own. Given my relationship to the topic, I am making the request for someone else to do the following: replace the existing article with my proposed version, or implement as many of my suggestions as deemed appropriate. Happy to discuss in more detail.
What follows is a thorough (and unavoidably lengthy) examination of the problems with the current article and how I address them in my proposed revision:
I think that just about covers it. Please leave a comment here or get in touch on my Talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, NMS Bill ( talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I had considered proposing this article for deletion because I thought it might have been a POV title for EWG self-promotion until I found it was used in the scientific literature—here's the MeSH definition. How about merging over to biomonitoring? One can simply define biomonitoring as measuring a body burden. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is not well formated: There are many URLs in the text. They should either be listed as External links or as References, using the tags <ref></ref> and <references/>. -- Lucido 09:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just featured tonight on "CNN - Planet in Peril." It sounds like a huge up and coming item and I think we need and expert. Can someone tag this page for "expert needed?" Or, contribute!! Thanks! Scotty -- Scottymoze 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{ POV}} to this section, as it seems to be written from a partisan point of view, and contains political advocacy (telling readers to support particular legislative proposals). This needs to be rewritten, or removed entirely. In fact, the whole of this article represents the view of the Environmental Working Group rather than a more neutral and scientific perspective (it's worth remembering that many of the claims made about 'body burden' are not accepted by medical professionals), but this section is the worst part. Robofish ( talk) 14:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This article contains much that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, which has been the case for some time -- at least 20 months based on the warning template stating "additional citations" are needed. That is certainly a problem, but far from the only one, as I will detail below. I have written an alternative version and posted it to my userspace. The reason I do not make these changes directly at this time is because I have a potential conflict of interest in that a client of my employer is engaged on issues pertaining to this subject matter. They have provided research assistance, but the words are my own. Given my relationship to the topic, I am making the request for someone else to do the following: replace the existing article with my proposed version, or implement as many of my suggestions as deemed appropriate. Happy to discuss in more detail.
What follows is a thorough (and unavoidably lengthy) examination of the problems with the current article and how I address them in my proposed revision:
I think that just about covers it. Please leave a comment here or get in touch on my Talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, NMS Bill ( talk) 02:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I had considered proposing this article for deletion because I thought it might have been a POV title for EWG self-promotion until I found it was used in the scientific literature—here's the MeSH definition. How about merging over to biomonitoring? One can simply define biomonitoring as measuring a body burden. - Shootbamboo ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)