Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/19454
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/19454
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It depends on a lot on what you're trying to say; what structure and focus you give your article.

Basically, if your article prompts the question "why isn't anybody fixing this?" or "can't anything be done," then by omitting solutions you'll be giving an incomplete picture - possibly an actually misleading one, if e.g. the city is actively working on solutions, but your article gives the impression that nothing is being done.

But if your article is more on a different focus, e.g. "What is life like in a city with problem X?" or "What challenging issues is the city facing?", then detailed solutions aren't required - to a certain extent, they're beside the point.

Basically, you should be able to give a nutshell-summary of your article - just a couple of sentences. Look at that summary. Is detailing solutions crucial to fleshing that summary out? Or would that be moving away from your core focus? That's your answer.

If you're having trouble deciding, I'd suggest you try to write a single quick line saying what the status of solutions are. `"The city is working hard to solve these problems, but it will take time to have an effect."` Or `"Solutions exist in theory, but nobody is implementing them."` You can be very vague and general. See where you can fit that line into your article. See what effect it has. That'll let you judge whether, in context, it's a line that needs to be expanded on, or one that can be omitted entirely.

Original score: 2