Bamboo textile edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it's POV doesn't seem to be neutral. It's more a list of criticisms citing outdated/broken links.
Thanks, Opertinicy (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I'll take this one. Let me print it out and take a look at it ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, it's been a couple of days. I have not only looked over the article, I have done some editing, which went beyond the usual light copy edit to addressing the POV issue identified by the nominator. This has resulted in a shorter (but IMO improved) article.
Primarily I got rid of all the "compare ..." parts of the paragraphs in the "Ecological considerations" subsections where the writer had an axe to grind, and ground it, with cotton production. While that material is not by itself verboten for this article, it should be included only if a reliable source has made those comparisons (per WP:TONE, "[i]t is not Wikipedia's role to try to convince the reader of anything, only to provide the salient facts as best they can be determined, and the reliable sources for them."). Most importantly, Wikipedia articles should never have imperatives directed at the reader, unless in quoted matter that is clearly attributed and sourced.
While that section is still weak, and needs further sourcing and expansion, the removal of all those direct attempts to persuade the reader has made me confident enough to remove the POV tag. I also took care of some layout issues, like the sandwiching of text between two images at the beginning of the first section, and (less so) some sentences with two spaces between periods. I also cleaned up some inconsistent spelling (if we start with the Commonwealth "fibre", we need to stick with it) and applied the {{convert}} template where needed.
However, the article still has some issues. For one thing, per WP:CRITS, the "controversy" section needs to be eliminated. What's in there that's relevant and sourced could be better off put into a section about the production of bamboo fiber.
Most importantly ... while writing this I got the bright idea to run a copyvio check on the article.
I now wish I'd started with that. Because it revealed, as I had sort of suspected all along but not really at the forefront of my mind, that a fair amount of this text came from somewhere else. And then it seems another key graf was taken from an Etsy listing.
This must be corrected, and I will be tagging the article appropriately. Seriously addressing it could go a long way toward cleaning up the remaining POV issues. Never mind ... I read to the bottom of the first source, and they apparently copied from us, with attribution. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)