User:P Walford/sandbox

Some Problems in Electronic Cigarette
This is an incomplete list of problems that need to be addressed in the main article.

Paragraph 2

 * There is tentative evidence that they can help people quit smoking, although they have not been proven to work better than regulated nicotine replacement products, and the regulated medication is safer. 

"They have not been proven to work better" is troublesome. Consider rewording for NPOV. "The regulated medication is safer" is not supported by the source, which states it with less certainty and mentions an inhaler but not other NRTs. This should not be expressed in Wikipedia's voice.


 * Overall their safety risk to users is similar to that of smokeless tobacco. 

The source says "Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking". Different smokeless tobacco products have different risk profiles. To omit the last part of the sentence is misleading and possibly OR. If this claim has enough weight to be included, all of the information in this sentence should be in the article (probably attributed). Otherwise, remove. The lede should summarise the body, but this statement doesn't appear in the body.


 * Non-smokers who use e-cigarettes risk becoming addicted to nicotine, a chemical with a range of harmful effects. 

I can't find "Non-smokers who use e-cigarettes risk becoming addicted to nicotine" anywhere in the WHO report. It discourages use by non-smokers, but doesn't go as far as to say this as far as I can see. There are other sources that say it, however. It should be noted that ecigs are available without nicotine. What are the harmful effects? Nicotine's potential benefits aren't mentioned anywhere in the article.

Paragraph 3
There may be too much about aerosol composition here.


 * E-cigarettes create a vapor consisting of ultrafine particles whose composition varies across and within manufacturers. 

Reads like ultrafine particles are the only thing in vapour -- misleading. Why are ultrafine particles significant?


 * Using later-generation e-cigarettes on high power can generate more formaldehyde than tobacco does.

Why is formaldehyde generation significant?

Paragraph 4
Statistics should state definitions of use in the source (e.g. ever use, past 30 days, daily?)


 * Since their introduction to the market in 2004, global usage has risen exponentially. 

This statement is not encyclopaedic. The numbers in 2004 were near zero, of course.


 * In the United States e-cigarettes are used by a significant percentage of youth and adults. 

Shouldn't use present tense for 2014 "at least once in the last month" statistics.


 * A majority of e-cigarette users still smoke traditional cigarettes, leading to concerns that dual use can "delay or deter quitting". 

Needs balance -- reduction in numbers of TCs smoked and/or source which says the opposite.


 * About 60% of UK users are smokers and about 40% are ex-smokers, while use among never-smokers remains "negligible". 

This sentence may be in the wrong place. Might need an "as of".


 * The European Parliament passed regulations in February 2014, to come into effect by 2016, standardizing liquids and personal vaporizers, listing ingredients, and child-proofing liquid containers. 

The EU regulations do much more than create consumer product standards -- needs to be expanded.


 * The US FDA published proposed regulations in April 2014 with some similar measures. 

Same problem. Might be better to wait until finalised.


 * , there were 466 brands with sales of around $7 billion. 

"466" is problematic. What's a brand? What does this add to the encyclopaedia? The WHO2014 citation should be moved to the middle of the sentence.

Use
This meta-analysis has some useful information. Could have another subsection about user experiences.

Frequency
"Young people", "youth", "teenagers", "young adults", and "students" are too imprecise and need to be more clearly defined.

Paragraph 1

 * Since their introduction to the market in 2004, global usage of e-cigarettes has risen exponentially. 

Not encyclopaedic, see above


 * By 2013, there were several million users globally. 

Needs to be updated.


 * But in both the US and UK the growth in usage seemed to have slowed in 2015. 

The US source refer to sales (in dollar amounts), the UK source refers to use. It has been suggested that US info is due to the market moving from more expensive cigalikes to less expensive VTMs (which are not well-documented in statistics).

Paragraph 2

 * 2010 and 2011 surveys suggested that adults with higher incomes may have been more likely to have heard of e-cigarettes, but those with lower incomes may have been more likely to try them. In addition, most users had a history of smoking regular cigarettes, while results by race were mixed. 

Outdated.


 * At least 52% of current or former smokers have used an e-cigarette. 

Dubious -- source says: "More than half (52%) of current or former smokers have tried e-cigs" (no citation). Later in same paragraph: "These trends in use represent UK and US e-cig users."


 * Of smokers who have, less than 15% turn into everyday e-cigarette users. 

The source cites this to two small surveys, one in Switzerland and one in the Czech Republic. Can it be applied as broadly as the Cochrane authors have?


 * Though e-cigarette use among those who have never smoked is very low, it continues to rise. 

Needs "as of". Source cites this editorial, which doesn't say this. The editorial is a comment on this small survey of nonvaping adolescent males in the US, which also doesn't say this.


 * A survey of e-cigarette users conducted from 2011-2012 found that only 1% of respondents used liquid without nicotine. 

Other surveys show very different statistics -- needs to be expanded

Paragraph 3

 * E-cigarette users mostly keep smoking traditional cigarettes. 

Needs to be reworded. "Mostly" is too vague.


 * ''Many say e-cigarettes help them cut down or quit smoking. Adults often vape to replace tobacco, but not always to quit. Most e-cigarette users are middle-aged men who also smoke traditional cigarettes, either to help them quit or for recreational use.

These sentences address motivation, not frequency -- should be moved. "Many"? "Often"? "Most"? First 2 sentences say the same thing in different ways. Better to say it once. The "middle-aged men" sentence is not supported by the source. It says, "Findings suggest that e-cigarettes are mostly used by middle-aged current smokers, particularly males, to help them for quitting or for recreation" in the abstract. The body says much more.


 * E-cigarette use is also rising among women as of 2014. 

Why say this specifically about women? "Also"?


 * Dual use of e-cigarettes and traditional tobacco is still a definite concern. 

Why? To Whom?


 * There is wide concern that vaping may be a "gateway" to smoking. 

"A wide concern" strays too far from the source. Concern to whom? Is there any evidence of a gateway?


 * A 2014 review raised ethical concerns about minors' e-cigarette use and the potential to weaken cigarette smoking reduction efforts. 

If this belongs in the article, it should be in a different section. Too vague.

Paragraph 4

 * In the US, the recent fall in smoking has accompanied a rapid growth in the use of alternative nicotine products among young people and young adults. 

Need to define "use", "alternative nicotine products", "young people", and "young adults".


 * Trying e-cigarettes was common among women and less educated people. 

Based on outdated (2010) survey results.


 * 56% of respondents in a US 2013 survey admitted having used e-cigarettes to quit or reduce their smoking, and 26% of respondents would use them in areas where smoking was banned. 

Who were the respondents? What survey? From source: "A recent small survey of e-cigarette users found that 56% reported using them to quit or reduce cigarette use, and 26% reported using them to smoke in places where conventional cigarettes were banned". Why not use the preceding sentence, "According to a small 2013 study, approximately two thirds of physicians reported that they believed that electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were a helpful aid for smoking cessation, and 35% recommended them to patients"? E-cigarette users was Montana, physicians was North Carolina. "Admitted"?


 * Among grade 6 to 12 students in the US, the proportion who have tried them rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012. Those still vaping over the last month rose from 1.1% to 2.1% and dual use rose from 0.8% to 1.6%. Over the same period the proportion of grade 6 to 12 students who regularly smoke tobacco fell from 7.5% to 6.7%. 

Outdated.

Paragraph 5

 * In 2013 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that around 160,000 students between 2011 to 2012 who had tried vaping had never smoked. 

This was reported as a number. Figures should be consistently stated, probably as percentages. The 2012 to 2013 number is even bigger and scarier.

Paragraph 6

 * In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.6 million in 2015, but use by current smokers remained flat at 17.6% from 2014 into 2015 (in 2010 it was 2.7%). 

This is good information, but the way it's presented could mislead. Note the use of raw numbers and percentages in the same sentence, also the difference in the range of years. Could use clarification of what a "smoker" is.


 * About one in 20 adults in the UK uses e-cigarettes. 

Needs "as of".


 * ''In the UK in 2015, 18% of regular smokers said they used e-cigarettes and 59% said they had used them in the past.

Need to mention "in a survey" or something similar.

10-11-year-old Welsh never-smokers are more likely to use e-cigarettes if a parent used e-cigarettes.

Interesting, but weight?


 * National Institute on Drug Abuse director Nora Volkow discussing a National Institutes of Health-funded study showing teens using e-cigarettes are more likely to start smoking tobacco.  (video)

Shouldn't be in the article, at least not as is. Generally, Dr. Volkow says things that are said in the article, but at the end she speaks of the results of a study. What study is this? There's no link or title anywhere. Does the study show what is claimed in the caption? The caption's claim is more definitive than Dr. Volkow's. It looks like a primary source.

Paragraph 7

 * The same survey also found 67% of smokers used e-cigarettes to reduce or quit smoking.


 * Of the 1.2% who had recently stopped tobacco smoking at the time of the survey, 84% (or 1% of the population surveyed) credited e-cigarettes as essential in quitting. 

Should be moved to Motivation.

Motivation
Too much reliance on medical sources. Much of the content is taken from small surveys with unrepresentative samples, many of which are outdated. It appears that it's an attempt to document every real or imagined motivation to use an ecig that could ever exist, often without regard to significance.

Paragraph 1

 * While many vapers believe usage is healthier than smoking for themselves and bystanders, some are concerned about the possible adverse health effects. 

Misleading -- the source says, "Many users believe that ENDS are healthier than regular cigarettes for themselves or for others, and they use ENDS for this reason. For example, of 179 Polish adult ENDS users in a convenience sample, 82% believed that ENDS were less dangerous than cigarettes, and an additional 15% believed that ENDS were ‘absolutely safe’. Typically, only a handful of users are concerned about the potential negative health effects or toxicity of ENDS."


 * Others use them to circumvent smoke-free laws and policies, or to cut back on cigarette smoking. 

"Circumvent" is not NPOV. The source says, "Consistent with marketing messages, the most common reasons given for trying e-cigarettes are for use in places where smoking is restricted, to cut down on smoking, and for help with quitting smoking" (cites 5 sources) and later "Although some cite a desire to quit smoking by using the e-cigarette, other common reasons for using the products are to circumvent smoke-free laws and to cut down on conventional cigarettes, which may reinforce dual use patterns and delay or deter quitting" (uncited). The sources the authors cite do not use "circumvent", choosing instead, "as a substitute for smoking where smoking is not allowed", "use in nonsmoking places", "to deal with situations where smoking was prohibited", and "can be used in smoke-free venues" (note: one is paywalled).


 * Not having odor from smoke on clothes on some occasions prompted interest in or use of e-cigarettes. 

Needs to be rephrased. What does "on some occasions" refer to? The source says "First, concerns about personal appearance (eg, preventing yellow teeth) or odour (eg, clothes not smelling like smoke) sometimes motivated interest in or use of ENDS."

Paragraph 2

 * College students often vape for experimentation. 

Students at 8 colleges in North Carolina, that is. Source says, "College students often use e-cigarettes as replacements for traditional cigarettes either as a “safer alternative” or for experimentation."


 * Expensive marketing aimed at smokers suggests e-cigarettes are "newer, healthier, cheaper and easier to use in smoke-free situations, all reasons that e-cigarette users claim motivate their use". 

Where does "Expensive marketing aimed at smokers suggests" come from? Earlier in the same source? -- possible synth. Source says, "ENDS ads promote the products as being “newer, healthier, cheaper and easier to use in smoke-free situations, all reasons that e-cigarette users claim motivate their use”." It's sourced to a study "of smokers who had never tried e-cigarettes", which says, "Ads describe e-cigarettes as newer, healthier, cheaper and easier to use in smoke-free situations, all reasons that e-cigarette users claim motivate their use." This is cited to a survey which occurred before there was any "expensive marketing" and also to a source written by 2 of the study's authors.


 * Exposure to e-cigarette advertising influenced people to try them. 

Source says, "Exposure to advertising was an important factor in trying and using them", cited to a small survey of hospitalised smokers in the southeastern US which found an association only.

Paragraph 3

 * The belief that e-cigarettes are safer than traditional cigarettes could widen their use among pregnant women. 

Cited to another article which raises the same point, but doesn't cite or research it. It's a valid point and makes sense, but should it be in this article? (WP:CRYSTAL)


 * E-cigarettes feel or taste similar to traditional cigarettes, and vapers disagreed about whether this was a benefit or a drawback. 

This isn't about motivation, it's about user experience.

Paragraph 4

 * E-cigarette users have contradictory views about using them to get around smoking bans. Some surveys found that a small percentage of users' motives were to avoid smoking bans, but other surveys found that over 40% of users said they used the device for this reason. The extent to which traditional cigarette users vape to avoid smoking bans is unclear. 

Possible copyvio. The source says, "ENDS users have conflicting beliefs about using ENDS to avoid smoking restrictions. In some surveys, only a small per cent of users describe this as a motivation. However, in other surveys, more than 40% of respondents said they used ENDS for this reason."

Paragraph 5
More undefined "young", "children", etc.


 * The health and lifestyle appeal may also encourage young non-smokers to use e-cigarettes, as they may perceive that trying e-cigarettes is less risky and more socially appealing. This may ameliorate negative beliefs or concerns about nicotine addiction. 

Too close to source, which says, "Health-related and lifestyle appeals may also encourage initiation among young non-smokers, as they may convey that trying e-cigarettes is less risky and more socially appealing, which may ameliorate negative beliefs or concerns about nicotine addiction." This sentence refers to marketing, and is unsourced opinion of authors.


 * The main reasons young people experimented with e-cigarettes were due to curiosity, flavors, and peer influences. 

Primary source -- survey of students at one middle school, two high schools, and one college in southeastern Connecticut.


 * Some advocates say there is concern that e-cigarettes could be appealing to youth because of their high-tech design, assortment of flavors, and accessibility online. 

Should be attributed, but "some advocates" is misleading. "The (US) National Association of County and City Health Officials said"? Note: cited to dead link (as is image cited to same source)


 * At least one advocacy group claims that candy and fruit flavors e-cigarettes are designed to appeal to young people. 

It's one thing to say they appeal to young people, it's another to say they were designed to appeal to young people. Unsourced opinion of authors -- should be removed, or at least attributed to organisation that said it, not to "at least one advocacy group".


 * Infants and toddlers could ingest the e-liquid from an e-cigarette device out of curiosity. 

Is this motivation or safety?

Paragraph 6
Need to find better sources -- most medical sources show a lack of understanding of technological aspects.


 * Most later-generation e-cigarette users shifted to their present device to get a "more satisfying hit", and users may adjust their devices to provide more vapor for better "throat hits". 

"A more satisfying hit" needs to be expanded. Primary source -- online survey which asked, “Did you switch to your current preferred type of e-cig because it gives you a more satisfying “hit” than previous e-cigs your tried?” (Yes/ No). 2nd half of sentence is cited to a source in a journal with impact factor of zero. It cites this article, which reports interviews with 15 people in St. Louis, Missouri. What are "throat hits"?

Other uses
This section shouldn't be a section, as it gives this aspect of the topic far more weight than the reliable sources do. One sentence somewhere in this article (not the lede) is sufficient.


 * Electronic cigarettes may be used with other substances and cartridges can potentially be filled with e-liquid containing substances other than nicotine, thus serving as a new and potentially dangerous way to deliver other drugs, for example psychoactive or psychotropic drugs such as THC. 

As soon as "dangerous" is mentioned, it belongs in the Safety article. If the sentence says says it's "potentially dangerous" it needs to be attributed, and the nature and extent of the potential dangers need to be mentioned.

Construction
Too much reliance on medical sources.

Paragraph 1

 * The e-liquid reaches a temperature of roughly 100-250 °C within a chamber to create an aerosolized vapor. The user inhales the aerosol, commonly called vapor, rather than cigarette smoke. 

The way this is stated, a reader could get the impression that the user inhales an extremely hot aerosol -- need to include missing information.

Paragraph 2
Should reconcile 3 types & 4 generations.

Positions of medical organizations
The practice with sub-articles has been to summarise their contents in their ledes and duplicate these ledes in the main article. This one is the exception -- the Positions lede is short, and in the main article, additional excerpts from position statements appear. Why these particular organisations' positions were chosen isn't always clear. In the main article, "Positions of medical organizations" appears in "Health Effects". It should include positions of medical organisations only about health effects only. Other position statements appear in different sections, and should be moved to this section, to the sub-article, or removed. Alternatively, if it's necessary to use position statements elsewhere in the article, this subsection should be removed.


 * Centers for Disease Control (CDC) press release concerning e-cigarettes.  (image)

It's about use, not health effects. The presence of an exclamation mark should be enough to remove this. It's not a press release, it's a marketing image in a press release. If it stays, it needs a definition of use.

Paragraph 3

 *  there are clinical trials in progress to test the quality, safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes, but until these are complete the NHS maintains that the government could not give any advice on them or to recommend their use." 

If this information appeared at the link provided, it's no longer there. As of 16 January 2016, there's a short statement there with a link to another page, which gives advice on them and recommends their use.

Paragraph 4

 * In 2015 the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommended against using e-cigarettes to quit smoking, stating that for adolescents e-cigarettes are not effective in treating tobacco dependence. 

Not in source, which says: "Electronic nicotine delivery systems are not FDA-approved for tobacco dependence treatment and have not been shown to be safe or effective for tobacco dependence treatment."


 * In 2014, the US FDA said "E-cigarettes have not been fully studied, so consumers currently don't know: the potential risks of e-cigarettes when used as intended, how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or whether there are any benefits associated with using these products. Additionally, it is not known whether e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death." 

The FDA are a regulatory agency, not a medical organisation.

Smoking Cessation
Smoking and smoking cessation have health effects, but are they themselves health effects? This information from the NHS, "In the year up to April 2015, two out of three people who used e-cigarettes in combination with the NHS stop smoking service quit smoking successfully", should be added.

Paragraph 1

 * CDC launches "Tips From Former Smokers" ad campaign in 2015. The main information on e-cigarettes begins at 24:45.  (video)

Video loads very slowly at times. In any case, it needs to be removed. It contains a considerable amount of unsourced POV and the caption directs to an excerpt based on a misleading "Tips from Former Smokers" ad -- see here.

Paragraph 2

 * There has only been one study directly comparing first generation e-cigarettes to conventional NRT as smoking cessation tools so the comparative effectiveness is not known. 

Needs "as of".

Paragraph 3

 * However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.

Now that the positives have been watered down, "however" doesn't work anymore.


 * Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, 

WHO said the same thing as USPSTF. Should merge the two sentences, either here or Paragraph 1.

Harm Reduction
Somewhere, maybe in this section, the possible harm reversal for people with COPD and asthma (and hypertension when the reviews mention it) needs to be addressed.

Paragraph 1

 * THR has been controversial out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products, that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use. 

Source said, "The issue of harm reduction has long been controversial in the public health practice of tobacco control. Health advocates have been reluctant to endorse a harm reduction approach out of fear that tobacco companies cannot be trusted to produce and market products that will reduce the risks associated with tobacco use." It's phrased too closely to the source, and it's misleading. It implies that ecigs are produced exclusively by tobacco companies. The source was published before any tobacco company involvement with ecigs. The sentence immediately following is, "Recently, companies independent of the tobacco industry introduced electronic cigarettes, devices that deliver vaporized nicotine without combusting tobacco."
 * Tobacco smoke contains 100 known carcinogens, and 900 potentially cancer causing chemicals, none of which has been found in more than trace quantities in the cartridges or aerosol of e-cigarettes. 

Probable synth. Even if it isn't, the second half of the sentence is outdated.

Paragraph 2

 * A core concern is that smokers who could have quit completely will develop an alternative nicotine addiction instead. 

Could be misleading -- Authors were referring to concern about tobacco harm reduction as a concept, not ecigs in particular.


 * ''A 2014 review stated that promotion of vaping as a harm reduction aid is premature, but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, e-cigarettes have a potential to be part of the harm reduction strategy.

Because the first point is attributed, these statements shouldn't appear in the same sentence, at least not as it was written.


 * A 2015 Public Health England report concluded that e-cigarettes "release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders". 

Safety?


 * A 2014 review recommended that regulations for e-cigarettes could be similar to those for dietary supplements or cosmetic products to not limit their potential for harm reduction. 

Regulation?


 * E-cigarette use for risk reduction in high-risk groups such as people with mental disorders is unavailable. 

E-cigarette use is unavailable? Source says, "As yet, there is no data in the available literature on the use of e-cigarettes in high-risk groups such as psychiatric patients." Is it an accurate statement?

Paragraph 3
These are all positions of medical organisations. Should move to sub-article.

Paragraph 1

 * Adverse effects of vaping. (image)

Implies that if you vape, these things will happen to you. Suggestion: "possible adverse effects of vaping" or "reported adverse effects of vaping".


 * Regulated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) products such as nicotine inhalers are probably safer than e-cigarettes. 

Needs to be attributed -- conclusion of one review based on one test of now-outdated ecigs.

Paragraph 2

 * Less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough. 

As suggested on the talk page of Safety, adverse effects of ecigs should be sorted out from side effects of nicotine. Also, effects of smoking cessation.


 * A 2014 WHO report said, "ENDS use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses." 

What are these threats? In this article, a number of sentences cited to the WHO report are remarkably vague. This is one example.


 * Aside from toxicity, there are also risks from misuse or accidents such as contact with liquid nicotine, fires caused by vaporizer malfunction, and explosions as result from extended charging, unsuitable chargers, or design flaws. 

What does "toxicity" refer to? Is "contact with liquid nicotine" toxicity? Can't find "caused by vaporizer malfunction" in source. Should number of fires be compared to number of fires caused by smoking?

Paragraph 3

 * The e-liquid has a low level of toxicity, and contamination with various chemicals has been identified in the product. 

"and" is troublesome. 2 sentences?


 * Metal parts of e-cigarettes in contact with the e-liquid can contaminate it with metals. 

Amounts? Is there harm?


 * E-cigarette users are exposed to potentially harmful nicotine. 

Assumes all ecigs contain nicotine. Not surprisingly, the source doesn't say this.

Paragraph 4

 * E-cigarettes create vapor that consists of ultrafine particles, with the majority of particles in the ultrafine range. 

Needs to be fixed. See comment about similar statement in paragraph 3 of lede.


 * The vapor has been found to contain flavors, propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, tiny amounts of toxicants, carcinogens, heavy metals, and metal nanoparticles, and other chemicals. 

Could be inferred that all vapour contains all of these ingredients -- clarify.


 * However, e-cigarettes cannot be regarded as simply harmless. 

An odd place for this sentence.


 * There is a concern that some of the mainstream vapor exhaled by e-cigarette users can be inhaled by bystanders, particularly indoors. 

Why?


 * E-cigarette use by a parent might lead to inadvertent health risks to offspring. 

What risks? How?


 * A 2014 review recommended that e-cigarettes should be regulated for consumer safety. 

Same sentence already appears in Regulation. Remove.


 * A 2014 review found "disposable e-cigarettes might cause an electrical waste problem." 

This could be deleted. It's a concern the authors mentioned in passing. There's no need to add this to "There is limited information available on the environmental issues around production, use, and disposal of e-cigarettes that use cartridges." "Found"?

E-liquid
This section should be moved. There's no mention of health effects.


 * There are many e-liquids manufacturers in the USA and worldwide, and upwards of 8,000 flavors. 

What is a flavour? Similar to 466 brands, any attempt to quantify is going to yield inaccurate results, and, similar to 466 brands, the number is probably much greater.


 * While there are currently no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) manufacturing standards for e-liquid, the FDA has proposed regulations that are expected to be finalized in late 2015. 

It's 2016 now.

Addiction
Use of the word "addiction" is inaccurate. "Dependence" is better.

Paragraph 1

 * Nicotine, a key ingredient in e-liquids, is a highly addictive substance, on a level comparable to heroin and cocaine. 

"comparable to heroin or cocaine"? Is it necessary to use marketing slogans in this article? If it is, it needs to be attributed, as there is considerable argument with the statement. Nicotine doesn't say this; it says, "Nicotine is addictive." The cited source is questionable.


 * When nicotine intake stops, withdrawal symptoms include cravings for nicotine, anger/irritability, anxiety, depression, impatience, trouble sleeping, restlessness, hunger or weight gain, and difficulty concentrating. 

In scientific literature there is some documentation of the lack of withdrawal symptoms after cessation of NRT use. Is there enough to require attribution? Note: the wikilink goes to an article that says it's about nicotine withdrawal, but it and all of its cited sources describe effects of smoking cessation. Bullen is paywalled, but I suspect it doesn't say all of this. The Medline source (and the sources it cites) describes effects of smoking cessation, and calls it symptoms of nicotine withdrawal.

Paragraph 2

 * The World Health Organization has raised concern about addiction for non-smokers, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse said e-cigarettes could maintain nicotine addiction in those who are attempting to quit. 

More positions of medical organisations. Move to appropriate sub-article.


 * No long-term studies have been done on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes in treating tobacco addiction, 

Needs "as of".


 * but some evidence suggests that dual use of e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes may be associated with greater nicotine dependence. 

Another gem from Orellana-Barrios et al. -- this source should be used with extreme caution. It would be truer to the source they cite to say, "A study of currently-smoking cancer patients at one institution found that those who were more addicted were more likely to use electronic cigarettes in addition to smoking."

Paragraph 3

 * Many studies have focused on young people in particular, since youthful experimentation with e-cigarettes could lead to lifelong addiction. 

Can't find "Many studies have focused on young people in particular, since" in source. "A lifelong addiction" -- loaded words? This statement should be accompanied by figures (available for US and probably other countries) stating that a majority of youth users use ecigs without nicotine.


 * Various organizations, including the UATLD, the AAP and the FDA, have expressed concern that e-cigarette use could increase nicotine addiction in youth.   

More positions of (mostly) medical organisations -- move to sub-article.


 * Although regular use of e-cigarettes is generally very low by people who have never smoked, significant numbers of teenagers who have never smoked tobacco have experimented with e-cigarettes. The degree to which teens are using e-cigarettes in ways the manufacturers did not intend, such as increasing the nicotine delivery, is unknown, as is the extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to addiction or substance dependence in youth. 

Move all content except "as is the extent to which e-cigarette use will lead to addiction or substance dependence in youth" to Use?

Nicotine yield
It needs to be said in this section that some ecigs have zero nicotine.


 * Smoking a traditional cigarette yields between 0.5 and 1.5 mg of nicotine, but the nicotine content of the cigarette is only weakly correlated with the levels of nicotine in the smoker's bloodstream. 

How is this relevant?


 * New EU regulations cap this at a maximum of 2% (20 mg/mL), but this is an arbitrary ceiling based on limited data. 

Regulation?

History
Needs content about technological developments after 2009 and the VTM market -- neither is adequately addressed.

Paragraph 3

 * The Ruyan e-cigar was first launched in China in 2004. (image)

citation needed


 * Many versions made their way to the U.S., sold mostly over the Internet by small marketing firms. 

This sentence refers to 2009. In its current location it implies (correctly) that it was occurring earlier than the source says.


 * E-cigarettes entered the European market and the US market in 2006 and 2007. 

Source says this, but source the authors cited is a dead link (archive). Is blu ecigs reliable for this info? This source from PHE says "Electronic cigarettes were first introduced to Europe in about 2005..." (uncited). If kept, it should be moved to a different place in section.

Paragraph 6
While a complete documentation of every brand and company owned by tobacco companies might have a place in Wikipedia, the place isn't in this section, and possibly not in this article. Repeating this information in a table gives it too much emphasis.

Paragraph 1

 * This suggests e-cigarettes have potential mass appeal that could challenge combustible tobacco's market position. 

It's phrased too closely to the source while simultaneously straying too far from the source. Source says, "...these products have the potential mass appeal to challenge the primacy of smoked tobacco as the product of choice for nicotine users."

Paragraph 2

 * Vapers energetically embrace activities associated with e-cigarettes and sometimes act as unpaid evangelicals according to a 2014 review. 

The source says this but painting all members of a subset with the same brush should probably be avoided. Note: journal impact factor = zero


 * A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal editorial stated that e-cigarette companies have a substantial online presence, as well as many individual vapers who blog and tweet about e-cigarette related products. The editorial stated that vapers "also engage in grossly offensive online attacks on anyone who has the temerity to suggest that ENDS are anything other than an innovation that can save thousands of lives with no risks". 

This editorial isn't a reliable source. The second sentence doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. (note: in January 2016, author was accused of lying in the BMJ.) If the article is to address this aspect, it needs to be balanced. If this content stays, perhaps something from this source should be added?


 * A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. The same review said this is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s. These approaches were used in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. 

Needs balance -- perhaps from this source: "Therefore, it should be easy to implement a reasonable regulation that is very much in line with consumers’ aspirations. Unfortunately, this may be politically impossible to implement because the growing popularity of e-cigarettes is a threat to the interests of the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry and to their associated stakeholders due to the substantial decrease in cigarette consumption and NRT sales. The fat revenues generated by tobacco excise taxes are very much needed by authorities to run their national state and local governments. Fees and investments from the pharmaceutical industry for the marketing of antismoking drugs and medications intended to treat tobacco-related diseases are much needed by regulatory bodies, health authorities and medical societies for the running of their statutory activities." Maybe something from this source too.

Paragraph 3

 * E-cigarette user blowing a cloud of aerosol (vapor). The activity is known as cloud-chasing.  (image)

The cited source doesn't call the activity in the picture "cloud-chasing". Is it cloud-chasing?

Paragraph 1

 * in 2016 the US Department of Transportation banned the use of e-cigs on commercial flights. This regulation applies to all flights to and from the United States. 

This is misplaced, should be moved to sub-article.

Paragraph 3

 * In February 2014 the European Parliament passed regulations requiring standardization and quality control for liquids and vaporizers, disclosure of ingredients in liquids, and child-proofing and tamper-proofing for liquid packaging. In April 2014 the US FDA published proposed regulations for e-cigarettes along similar lines. 

As in the lede, this needs to be expanded.

Paragraph 4

 * E-cigarettes have been listed as drug delivery devices in several countries because they contain nicotine, and their advertising has been restricted until safety and efficacy clinical trials are conclusive. 

Possibly too similar to source. Authors don't cite anything.


 *  electronic cigarettes had not been approved as a smoking cessation device by any government. 

MHRA have approved one now.

Marketing
Too much reliance on medical sources -- there's more to marketing than misleading claims and aggressive advertisements targeting children. Many of these sources make claims that something is "common" or "popular", but it's a rare event when they provide any evidence that something is indeed common or popular. More undefined "youth", "young", etc.

Paragraph 1

 * A 2014 review said, "the e-cigarette companies have been rapidly expanding using aggressive marketing messages similar to those used to promote cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s." 

Presumably, greatly increased from zero. Source says, "Major tobacco companies have bought some of these e-cigarette companies and are spending tremendous amounts of money advertising e-cigarettes as an alternative to conventional cigarettes; one product’s advertising funds increased from $992,000 to $12.4 million from 2011 to 2012." If this source is used, it is necessary to include the dates. Are more recent figures available? Note that 2011-2012 figures are used, when first tobacco company acquisition was in April 2012. This POV statement should not be the opening sentence. Needs to be moved, probably out of the article.


 * E-cigarettes and nicotine are regularly promoted as safe and beneficial in the media and on brand websites. 

"Regularly"? Source cites 6 examples from 4 companies. Only 2 make such claims, one of which is a 2013 Daily Mail article which doesn't mention ecigs. This source was published in March 2015.


 * While advertising of tobacco products is banned in most countries, television and radio e-cigarette advertising in some countries may be indirectly encouraging traditional cigarette smoking. There is no evidence that the cigarette brands are selling e-cigarettes as part of a plan to phase out traditional cigarettes, despite some claiming to want to cooperate in "harm reduction". 

Should Wikipedia be making these arguments?


 * In the US, six large e-cigarette businesses spent $59.3 million on promoting e-cigarettes in 2013. 

Source cites this to a report apparently written for US Senator Durbin, but I can't access it. This claim is made in at least one other source, and a large majority of the $59.3 million was spent by one company.


 * Easily circumvented age verification at company websites enables young people to access and be exposed to marketing for e-cigarettes. 

Should be moved to another place in this section.

Paragraph 2

 * A national US television advertising campaign starred Steven Dorff exhaling a "thick flume" of what the ad describes as "vapor, not tobacco smoke", exhorting smokers with the message "We are all adults here, it's time to take our freedom back." The ads, in a context of longstanding prohibition of tobacco advertising on TV, were criticized by organizations such as Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids as undermining anti-tobacco efforts. Cynthia Hallett of Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights described the US advertising campaign as attempting to "re-establish a norm that smoking is okay, that smoking is glamorous and acceptable". University of Pennsylvania communications professor Joseph Cappella stated that the setting of the ad near an ocean was meant to suggest an association of clean air with the nicotine product. 

Far too much about one 2012 advert.


 * In 2012 and 2013, e-cigarette companies advertised to a large television audience in the US which included 24 million youth. 

Possibly misleading -- there were 24 million youth (by the article's definition) in US households with televisions. Did all of them see ecig advertising?


 * The channels on which e-cigarette advertising reached the largest numbers of youth (ages 12–17) were AMC, Country Music Television, Comedy Central, WGN America, TV Land, and VH1. 

Do youth (ages 12–17) watch these channels?

Paragraph 3

 * A 2014 review said e-cigarettes are aggressively promoted, mostly via the internet, as a healthy alternative to smoking in the US. 

"Aggressively" makes another appearance. Source is paywalled -- did the authors cite?


 * ""Big tobacco" markets e-cigarettes to young people, with industry strategies including cartoon characters and candy flavors to sell e-cigarettes. ''

Inaccurately stated opinions from a primary source. Should be removed or attributed. This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH.


 * E-cigarette companies commonly promote that their products contain only water, nicotine, glycerin, propylene glycol, and flavoring but this assertion is misleading as scientists have found differing amounts of heavy metals in the vapor, including chromium, nickel, tin, silver, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum. 

Should mention that "differing amounts" includes zero. Note that the comparison is between e-liquid and vapour, two different things.


 * The assertion that e-cigarette emit "only water vapor" is false because the evidence indicates e-cigarette vapor contains possibly harmful chemicals such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, in addition to particulates. 

Implies all vapour contains all of these chemicals. "In addition to particulates" is troublesome because the particulates could include any or all of nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds (and water).

Economics
More information on the VTM market is needed. If it can be found, more about small and medium-sized businesses should be here.

Paragraph 1

 *  there were at least 466 e-cigarette brands. 

See above. At least it says "at least" this time.

Paragraph 2

 *  e-cigarette devices are mostly made in China. 

Could be expanded -- Who are the manufacturers?

Paragraph 4

 * Canada is an expanding market for e-cigarettes. 

Needs "as of"


 * There are numerous e-cigarette retail shops in Canada. 

Probably can't be answered, but how many? This source estimated 1100, but is it reliable?


 * In 2013, the company Smoke NV was the leading seller of e-cigarette products in Canada. Smoke NV does not sell vapor products containing nicotine. 

As far as I can see, there were huge changes in the Canadian market (and many others) in 2014. This might be outdated.

Paragraph 5

 * The UK is a growing market for e-cigarettes. 

Needs "as of".

Paragraph 4

 * On 1 June 2015, they introduced Juul a different type of e-cigarette which delivers 10 times as much nicotine as other e-cigarettes, equivalent to an actual cigarette puff. 

Juul might be "a different type of e-cigarette", but it's still an e-cigarette, correct? Move to PAX Labs.

Images
Total number = 16

images (including captions) of:


 * ecigs or components = 5
 * users using = 2
 * concerns about youth use = 6


 * CDC images = 4
 * CDC images about youth = 3


 * positive content about ecigs = 0
 * neutral content about ecigs = 8
 * negative content about ecigs = 8


 * content specific to US = 7
 * negative content about ecigs specific to US = 7
 * negative content about ecigs cited to US government-funded sources = 8