Talk:An Edible History of Humanity

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Boldface

I removed some of the boldface that was in the text. They looked like they were for each of the sections so if someone wanted to put them back in as subsections describing the parts of the book that could work. They all had at least some information after them. Dreambeaver (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me. I was trying to make it easier for the reader to pick out the different sections that I mentioned, but it is fine. I will leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonahM13 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be easier to navigate if they were broken up. I took it out because that wasn't one of the reasons to bold something according to Wikipedia. I think it would be great if you split it up into subsections though and it would be better! Dreambeaver (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

Hi. I was going to copy edit this, but about half way through I found myself very confused, since I've not read the book. If someone who has read it would like to work on it some more, here's an idea. Remember the summary should probably be about 4 paragraphs long, per WP:MOS. Start by telling us the premise of the book. Give us a couple of examples, and summarize it's conclusion. Then someone who hasn't read it can help you copy edit it.

For the section on critical reception, it would be better to have more than one quote. When you just see one quote you don't know if it's representative of the general reaction or not. The brief reading I did here makes me think the book might be controversial. If it is, it would be good to bring that into the discussion, also.

Finally, may I suggest looking at this: Wikilinks. Links with words like 'potatoes' are discouraged. They don't add to the understanding of the article, and are considered "overlinking". Keep working and you'll have a good article. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

I have read the book, and I'm puzzled by the inaccurate statement in the article that "Food as a weapon" is the final section. "Food as a Weapon" is the fifth section; "Food, Population, and Development" is the sixth and final section. I will try to improve the article later if I have time. KerrMudgeonMT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]