jgervin, I suggest adding a lot of footnotes. Pretend you are a skeptical Wikipedia reader who loves to stamp "citation needed" everywhere. There are a lot of f

jgervin, I suggest adding a lot of footnotes. Pretend you are a skeptical Wikipedia reader who loves to stamp "citation needed" everywhere. There are a lot of figures mentioned - they all need sources. You mention a Center For American Progress study and a ComScore study - you should link to those. I know you have a list of sources at the end, but that's kind of an archaic paper-like solution for a medium with hyperlinks. I suspect this would be more persuasive to skeptical readers if you moderate the tone. Avoid terms like "outrageous" and "orgy of oil consumption". I would prefer it to be just facts - facts I can check by following hyperlinks! Also, put your email address on there somewhere, or some other way for people to contact you (other than direct messages via your Twitter account). Many people will have suggestions, from spelling mistakes (like "different generations that grow and dye" should be "different generations that grow and dye") to factual and logical criticisms.