![]() | Electronic cigarette was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Other talk page banners |
---|---|
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ismaray Ruiz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajameson1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sailorbo. Peer reviewers: Skyguythor.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protection edit request
(Under "Health Effects") "Nicotine is harmful.[110]"
Obviously, this is a heavily debated point in the medical community, and I'm willing to concede the point in itself. However, this is a short, unexplained section that feels jarringly brief, with no elaboration. How is it harmful? The source provided is inconclusive at best, completely misleading at worst. A doctor Q&A, with no explanation? That hardly seems appropriate to base such an assertive point on. In the article itself, the doctor doesn't actually say nicotine is harmful in and of itself, but rather because of its function in cigarette addiction.
I'd recommend removing the point entirely as is, and linking the wiki page for nicotine in a more transparent manner, which doesn't take nearly such a strong stance. Or, at the very least, find a better source to an actual meta-analysis that can confirm some negative effects of nicotine as a sole substance.
Confusing and convoluted sentence
User:Cloudjpk, I think that last paragraph in the lead is now confusing and convoluted. We need the lead to communicate a message that's clear, even to people who didn't do well in school -- or people who're still at school -- because the encyclopaedia is for them too. This means keeping the reading age of the lead low: simple sentence structure, simpler language, no equivocation. The greater complexity belongs lower down the article.
The intended message from that paragraph is that if you aren't already addicted to nicotine, then you shouldn't touch an e-cigarette, but if you are, e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than tobacco and they can help you quit (add citation to Cochrane meta-analysis).
Unfortunately your good faith quest for increased accuracy is undermining the goal of the paragraph as well as introducing concepts that don't appear in the Cochrane meta-analysis. I would ask that you please kindly consider moving this Wang-sourced business about e-cigarettes as consumer products, which isn't from Cochrane, lower down the article?—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I take your point. We should try to keep it clear and simple. However we should not make it misleading, or inaccurate, or contrary to our sources.
- The distinction is not trivial. In supervised clinical trials e-cigarettes have one effect; as a consumer product they have another. To imply otherwise is inaccurate. This is what our sources say. Fortunately there is no "he said she said" conflict here. Cochrane informs on e-cigarettes as medicine. Wang informs on e-cigarettes as consumer products.
- Five words to summarize all that seems reasonable in the lead. I agree that details can indeed come lower down in the article. Cloudjpk (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think we're making progress in keeping it simple but accurate. It is a challenge given the complexity of the real-world phenomena and evaluation and weighing of evidence, effects on individuals and populations, effects sensitive to setting, etc., to boil it down to a sentence or two appropriate for a lead paragraph. However I think we're closing in on it. I like your use of "medical help" instead of "clinical settings"; I think that improves simplicity and avoids jargon. For that same reason I decided against "nonclinical" etc. and indeed any Latin polysyllables; "most use" covers it and is simpler, and still conveys the key context. Cloudjpk (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Tried a couple more tweaks to lower reading age of the lead. It's running around 11 on Flesch Kincaid; I was hoping to get it down to 10. Progress so far is very incremental. I ended up making only one change for shorter sentences, which Flesch Kincaid measures. We're getting dinged on passive voice and verbs of being, in my opinion fairly so; I've been looking at those constructions in the lead. Cloudjpk (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
ENDS
Hello. As scientists often use the words electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), could these be added in the introduction?
83.228.145.34 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC).
Aerosol vs. Vapor
Your article lists that e-cigarettes emit a VAPOR yet the article it references clearly states it emits an AEROSOL. This is a critical distinction. Vapor implies gasses only while aerosol specifically includes tiny particles. Studies clearly show that particles of lead are present in e-cigarette emissions. This is critical information that is misleading and implies that these products are safer than they actually are. The article you site is listed as the second resource in your citations. Please review and repair. This is VERY important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBairos (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's why our article says, at paragraph 2:
E-cigarettes create an aerosol, often called vapor
. Scientifically it's an aerosol but in the e-cigarette subcommunity it's pretty much always called vapor. Because of this, whichever term we use, we always get people who passionately insist that we change it—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)