Talk:SUPERthrive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] POV

The content here may or may not be true, but it is not sourced and certainly not written from a neutral point of view. Use of terms such as "legitimate" imply that SUPERthrive is otherwise illegitimate. This may once again be true, but it needs reliable sourcing that others have said that. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The facts are there but the wording needs to be cleaned up. Wikipedia is for facts so using redundant terms like "supposedly" are not necessary. Report the facts, give both sides of the story equal weight, and move on. The article isn't bad though especially considering the lack of knowledge about how supertrhive works and their refusal to give even a simplified ingredient list. If someone with better writing skills than I would simply re-word it then I think it would be fine.

I've pretty much tried to take the POV out of the article and I'm working on getting some more sources for the article. Would you say that we can take off the neutrality template? WriterHound (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)