Talk:Poverty and obesity: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sabatier
No edit summary
imported>Gareth Leng
No edit summary
 
Line 14: Line 14:


Good work, the subject has been well covered. Remember to proof read (there are some repetitions and lack of clarity at times), to enter your references properly, and include your figures. [[User:Nancy Sabatier|Nancy Sabatier]] 11:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Good work, the subject has been well covered. Remember to proof read (there are some repetitions and lack of clarity at times), to enter your references properly, and include your figures. [[User:Nancy Sabatier|Nancy Sabatier]] 11:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:This has come together well; it reads clearly, is well referenced and reads as a scholarly evidence-based overview, and you've largely avoided the risk of glib and folksy "common sense". well done.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:39, 30 November 2011

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Relation between obesity and diet quality, dietary energy density, and energy costs. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Biology, Health Sciences and Eduzendium [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Helen Golz 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better title for this? Poverty-induced obesity or relationship between poverty and obesity? (Chunbum Park 00:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

Possibly, we'll see how the article develops and consider nrenaming later.Gareth Leng 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hannah Harman 10:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ross McEwan 18:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, good selection of references, great start. Nancy Sabatier 12:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Good work, the subject has been well covered. Remember to proof read (there are some repetitions and lack of clarity at times), to enter your references properly, and include your figures. Nancy Sabatier 11:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This has come together well; it reads clearly, is well referenced and reads as a scholarly evidence-based overview, and you've largely avoided the risk of glib and folksy "common sense". well done.Gareth Leng 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)