better writing

cinnamon colbert writes: much of the writing in the posts on /. violates one of the 1st principals of effective communication: go easy on words like "very" "interesting" and so forth. Maybe the /coders could put in code which automatically strips out these words, which on wikipedia, are aptly named "weasel words". Which brings up another thought, howcome /. posts and replies don't auto link to relevant wiki articles ? Finally, can the /. editors have a rule that a post has to go back to an original source if available ? Many times, I see science posts which are based on a news story which is based on a press releas which may or may not (uusally not) give a url for the underlying science, which is usually a report or paper in the peer reviewed literature. The post should have a url to this underlying report which is the basis for the long chain of secondary reports. If the post is based on a press release which is based on an UNpublished peace of work, this should be noted, as unpublished work has (at least to the scientist) a connotion of second rateness. PS: the wording on the submission page about which section to use is unclear; please rephrase, thanks