::I find I have to agree with Teque. The introduction, for example, basically notes that some people have positive opinions of non-commercial dog food, and some people have negative opinions of commercial dog food. There is no point in either of those statements. The "Commercial dog food" section appears to make a comparison of canned and dry food, where the facts in question are that dry food is cheaper, lasts longer, and is "more convenient", and that canned food spoils faster but has a longer shelf life, and contains more protein on a dry matter basis. This isn't exactly appropriate, and all of these facts are mentioned again in the article, so this comparison seems intended to criminalize dry dog food. Further, the concept of "dry matter" probably needs to be explained, as anyone who hasn't taken a Nutrition course is unlikely to know what that means. If you dried out wet dog food, and then— without the water weight— compared it on a gram to gram scale with dry dog food, yes, it would have more protein. However, a serving of wet food is mostly moisture, while a serving of dry dog food is mostly dry matter. So, as I understand, a dog gets a higher quantity of protein from a serving of dry food than a serving of wet food. I haven't added this to the article myself because I'm only repeating what I've been taught, I'm not intimately familiar with the subject. Moving on, in the "Alternate dog food" sections, it is insinuated that commercial dog foods have no or significantly less nutritional value than alternate dog foods (freeze dried, I believe, to be specific); a more appropriate statement would possibly be that freeze dried foods retain more of their natural nutrients, while processed foods add nutrients back artificially. Next, the statement "Many commercial dog foods are made from materials considered unusable or undesirable" is entirely opinionated. A statement that some ingredients can be unhealthy could be acceptable if backed by a citation of scientific research. Further, any list of "contents" should not include only "undesirable" ones. It should include all common ingredients. Otherwise, the list should be removed, as it draws focus to those specific ingredients. I just have to note, the only line in this section that suggests dry food has any value whatsoever is that expensive foods may contain "suitable" ingredients. It's true that the cheapest brands have the quality of shoe leather, and any brand with adequate nutrition will be more expensive, but no note is made that the expensive food brands tend to be, nutritionally, very healthy for dogs. As well, there is mention of some of the less savory by products that are allowed into foods by AAFCO, but no mention of the nutritional requirements necessary to be AAFCO certified. I'm not saying that having cow brains in dog food is desirable, but it should also be noted that dog food must meet certain nutritional standards to be AAFCO certified. Generally, the difference is considered to be that between "complete" and "complete and balanced". A dog can survive on a solely complete diet, whereas a balanced diet is actually healthy (and necessary to be AAFCO certified). Interestingly, many prescription diets aren't AAFCO certified, because they will often deliberately reduce some kind of nutrient, like sodium. While this might have ill effects on a typical dog, it's more healthy for one having heart problems. On the same topic, under "Labeling", AAFCO certification is disparaged. However, the only source for this is a person's opinion. The main point seems to be that AAFCO standards are worthless— whether or not they are, I couldn't say— but the point should be that the organization requires food to meet healthier standards. Next, a question— if there's an entire article on 2007 dog food recalls, is it necessary to go into such detail here? A more abridged form, like that used for "past recalls", that directs readers to the separate article might be more appropriate. Overall, the article focuses on negatives of dry dog food and does not allow for the facts that some types of dry dog food are very healthy, that some types of wet food may be unhealthy, or that some alternate foods may not be healthy. Further, there is an over-reliance on this type of statement: "Some argue..." "Some maintain..." "Proponents criticize..." "Supporters believe..." "Critics argue..." The majority of which, I'd like to note, promote negative opinions of dry dog food. Just because it is someone else's opinion, though, does not make it any less of an opinion. Most of these statements lack any support or citations, as well.