Geoff, The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints suggests that you should seek assistance at the Teahouse before proceeding with further editing on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse Tim Starling wrote: >... http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/ > cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could > presumably cite when you write about these topics. On > your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting > annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source, > which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary > sources directly? There may be some confusion between the meaning of primary and secondary sources here. http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/defra-study/ is a summary of several government document and peer reviewed primary sources. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html is a secondary source summarizing those primary sources, but it is not peer reviewed. However, it is considered reliable because it appears in a publication with editorial oversight of reporting and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x/abstract is a peer-reviewed primary source which includes an introductory literature review qualifying as a peer-reviewed secondary source, but the new findings will not be considered as reliable as the literature review summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint has some problems; for example the introduction is far too long and includes a header suggesting the intro has a body section in it. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>