Talk:Echinacea/Archive 2

Opinion Masquerading as Fact
"Evaluation of the literature within the field suffers generally from a lack of well-controlled trials, with many studies of low quality." Although backed many citations, it still looks like and opinion to me.

Focuses on what it hasn't been found to do, assumes knowledge of background
It reads oddly, starting out with a detailed introductory paragraph with just a botanical description and no mention of why the plant is of particular interest to humans, followed by a Medical Uses section that launches right into negative evidence before mentioning the purported uses that were being tested, or that people consume the stuff as a supplement and that there's a widespread if unproven belief that it supports the immune system. It's like finding a page on a politician that starts out by saying that the grand jury found no evidence strong enough to support an indictment without mentioning who he was or why he was suspected. (Worse, because there are no special policies about living plants.)

MOS:INTRO says "The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established" and "Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word". It's also questionable whether the current intro does an adequate job placing echinacea "in a context familiar to a normal reader". So I've tagged it as needing context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C414:CA30:9172:625F:15E4:B805 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

How Tall ?
140 cm equals 4.59 feet. Which is correct ? AJS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.59.93 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)