Talk:Arcadian ecology

Peer review comments on arcadian ecology

The lead in section to this article is full of factual evidence that helps the reader further understand Arcadian Ecology. However, it should be a little more concise and provide a broad overview of the topic. Perhaps you could move the parts about The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne, in 1789 and Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas to the History section. Or write a brief sentence about them in the lead in section and then elaborate on each in the historical section. The structure of the article is primarily clear. It provides a lot of information to the reader, but could use a little more organization. Maybe try to split up the section about Ethical Implications into two or even three subjects by showing the progression of the relationship between humans and nature. The article is well balanced and covers a plethora of topics consisting of historical figures, accredited works, and even environmental protection laws. One possible suggestion would be to include policies that are currently being passed or discussed in recent years. The coverage of the article is neutral and provides contrary views like Imperial Ecology and offers contrasting views of well known scholars within the field of ecology. One improvement would be to work on neutral language. The end of the lead in section and the end of the Ethical Implications section lean towards a persuasive essay. Finally, the sources are credible and accurate, with most of them being books written by credible scholars. Maybe cite your sources a little more frequently within the article and clean up the references sections by using reference names so you do not have to list the same reference more than once under a different number. Mrjohnson007 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments

The lead section is good and has lots of detail but I do think a couple of things could be made better. The lead section reads like the introduction to a book. I think that it could definitely take on more of a neutral stand. The last line in the lead in section reads as a thesis statement. The writing is good through out it just need to be less swayed in a particular direction. Also every line needs quotations to back it up, I think that this would also help to lessen the apparent biases that are coming through. In the history section I think that Imperial Ecology should be linked to its own Wikipedia page so readers can get more information if they so choose. The quotes from people are great too, but they could be adding more bias as well. They point the reader in thinking a particular way rather than simply stating facts. The ethical implications section has a great amount of details. Hetch-Hetchy is misspelled which could be the reason for the hyperlink not working. Also there just needs to be a lot more citations added to back-up the statements that are being made. The last two paragraphs of the section could make up their own sub heading especially the one relating to legislation because it strays away a bit from ethical implications and goes to the legislative results of the environmental protection movement. I think this is a very well written article, I think that the only real changes that need to be made are in terms of the taking of a neutral stand when adding more or doing the final edits. The sections do try to sway the reader a certain direction where they should be more based on facts and backed up with citations. This leads to the second point that I think there should be more citations throughout the article to give it more of a factual based background. All in all it is good work, good luck with the edits! MackenzieGlaze (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi JessicaCmaguire, I would like to take a minute to share my peer review of the Arcadian ecology article with you.

The lead section is well written and accurately represents the information being discussed throughout the rest of the article. However, since the "Ethical Implications" section is such a large part of the article, perhaps more about it should be mentioned in the lead section. The structure of the article is clear and logically presented, which is good. Information labeled under its appropriate headings makes it easy to locate in this article, but since there are only two main sections, subheadings may make the page even more quickly searchable (for example, subheadings referring to the significant subjects within Arcadian ecology, such as Adirondack Park and Hetch Hetchy). Also, a navigation box that directly links to each heading may also be useful as the article expands further in the future. Some images related to Arcadian ecology might also be useful on the page. The balance of the article is done well; it has an even coverage of both the history and the ethical implications regarding the topic. Although, again, this brings me back to my suggestion that the lead section might benefit with a larger mention of Arcadian ecology's ethical implications. The article's coverage is neutral in nature; even the section that discusses opposing opinions about America's economic use of nature discusses these viewpoints with even, fair coverage without seeming to take sides. Are they any other specific viewpoints of society's use of nature that have not yet been mentioned in the article? Finally, citations are used well throughout the article and the reference section is clear, organized, and full of credible sources that back the information in the article. My only suggestion about the references is to cite the source that specifically mentions how the Dust Bowl (in the "history" section) is related to Arcadian Ecology.

Also, I believe I've found a typo in the last paragraph of "Ethical Implications": "A look at the work by (?) will suggest that the United States is an economic success story that utilized the natural resources to the best of their abilities." It seems as if you may have left out the name of an ecologist or other historical figure.

Aside from these few minor suggestions, the article is looking great and you seem to be making nice progress. Keep up the good work! Jjt022 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Jjt022