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