Talk:Sugary drink tax

Well written article with slight flaws Mirzal Bachmid (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This was a really well written article with a lot of articles from neutral sources being used such as the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the World Health Organization. It also incorporated a section that talked about the tax that is applied around the world, further elaborating on its effectiveness and longevity, which helped add depth to the Wikipedia article. Whilst it did use articles that were neutral like academic literatures, it did use news articles, which have a tendency to be slightly biased, such as CNN and BBC. The article also did not have any grammatical inconsistencies and it also used the appropriate language that reinforces the author's neutrality. To encapsulate, the Wikipedia article deserved a B rating because it demonstrated depth, talking about a range of topics including the reason the tax was implemented in the the harm of excess sugar and the against the tax, a certain degree of credibility, apt grammatical use and a neutral tone. It did not used obtain a good article because it did use some articles that could be slightly biased, which could jeopardize the neutral tone the author attempted to incorporate within the article.


 * I have a few issues with the above. I do not understand why CNN and BBC "have a tendency to be slightly biased".  There is one English language CNN reference (there may have been more at the time of MB's review - I did not go through the history) and it seems to be an accurate summary of the scientific paper on which it is based.  I skimmed the paper and although I probably have more understanding of statistics than most, I am by no means an expert.  There are 5 BBC pieces referenced.  I took a closer look at two of them.  The Jamie Oliver one was accurate reporting of what Mr Oliver said: no more and no less.  The BBC piece on Chancellor Osborne's 2016 budget accurately reported what he said - I went to the transcript of the speech to verify.  The remarks about the BBC and CNN are gratuitous and ridiculous.  If MB considers BBC and CNN to be "slightly biased" I would love to see MB's list of unbiased sources.  Cross Reference (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)