Talk:Ecology/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: —focus 16:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll read through this article, and probably start putting up comments in a day or two. —focus 16:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what I'll do. I'm first going to check the article against the quick-fail criteria. Then I'll go through the prose, review the images, then look at the references, in that order.

The article meets the quick-fail criteria. Focus (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

"hierarchy of pattern and process" - this seems a bit complicated, especially for the intro, and the link doesn't explain what you mean by 'pattern and process'. Could this be clarified somehow?
- Removed this. Maybe not so pretty result. --Ettrig (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"create a biophysical feedback" - wouldn't this just be 'create biophysical feedback'? I don't think feedback is singular.
- Fixed. --Ettrig (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of how you start several sentence with 'ecosystem': it's a bit repetitive.
It's not necessary, in my opinion, to list all of Haeckel's careers in the intro.
- Moved to history section.--Ettrig (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"rudiments of modern ecology. Modern ecology mostly..." - repetitive.
- Fixed repetition. Maybe not so pretty result. --Ettrig (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link evolution on first occurrence (Charles Darwin's evolutionary treatise)
- Fixed. --Ettrig (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In 3rd paragraph you start two adjacent sentences with 'ecology'; I'd recommend against that.
- Fixed. --Ettrig (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"natural features of historical, spiritual or scientific value" - I'd think science would go first here, since the article is about a scientific field.
- Fixed. --Ettrig (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the list in the intro breaks up the flow of the paragraphs and looks somewhat awkward. Have you considered converting it into prose and merging it with the last paragraph?
Could the 5 footnotes at the end of the intro be placed within that sentence to indicate which specific parts of the sentence they are citing?

Thanks for the comments reviewer - I will start working on this very soon. I agree with most your posts so far! Great work.Thompsma (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this review coming? No comments from either side in a while. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to review the rest of this article, but I'm being kept very busy by real-life matters and User:Thompsma seems to be actively working on reviewing White Stork at the moment. When he's ready to begin addressing my comments, I will do the rest of the article. Focus (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Hopefully both sides will be ready soon, because GA reviews are not meant to be indefinite processes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resetting review as both writer and reviewer stopped editing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see my talk page. Focus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]