This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because... we have had a team of editors re-writing the article with the goal of bringing it up to FA status. We have now re-written each section and reviewed FA criteria. We would like general feedback on the article's readability and conformity to guidelines and FA criteria. We have specific questions with respect to use of "Main article," "Infobox," and "Topics related to" templates and our use of graphics.
Thanks, Sunray (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article about a complicated subject. It's a long way from FA, although it has potential. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
Layout
- The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against sandwiching text between two images. Many of the images in the existing article should be moved to avoid these text sandwiches.
- Generally, except for the lead image, it's best to set the image size to "thumb" rather than forcing a specific pixel width.
- When an image is directional, as in the case of the dodo, it's best to position it so the reader's eye is directed into the text rather than out of the page. The dodo would be better positioned on the right.
- MOS:SCROLL says, "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing."
- Generally, lists should be turned into straight prose.
Direct quotations
- The MoS suggests using blockquotes only for direct quotations of four lines or more. Shorter quotations should be embedded in the text inside normal quotation marks. The quotations should not be in italics.
- Direct quotations need attribution within the text and not just in the footnotes. Otherwise, readers may mistake assertions for statements of fact. An example from the final section of the article is "People do not always vote in their self interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values." This should be embedded in the text, put in quotation marks, de-italicized, and attributed to George Lakoff with a dialogue saying "according to George Lakoff" or "George Lakoff said" or "in the words of George Lakoff" or something similar.
Assertion vs. verifiable fact
- It's important to make a clear distinction between what Wikipedia is presenting as verifiable fact and what an outside writer is advancing as an opinion. The distinction must not be blurred. An example of blurring appears in the first two sentences of the "Human settlements" section: "While sustainability is a major global issue, implementation must occur first within our communities, households, and organizations. The study of the interrelationships among these communities, households, and organizations must occur in order to determine a successful and quantifiable plan of action." If this is coming from Wikipedia, it violates NPOV. To avoid violating NPOV, it must be clearly labeled as the opinion of someone outside of Wikipedia. In addition, Wikipedia would not use "our" or similar pronouns in this way, partly for reasons related to NPOV. It's important to write as though seeing Earth from Mars, a detached reporter of verifiable events. Don't insert Wikipedia into the text as "we" or "us". I see several other places in the text that slip into "we" and "us" mode.
Bolding
- Bolding is added automatically to the section heads. In the main text, it should be used only in the first line of the lead for the word "Sustainability". Otherwise it should be removed from all instances in the main text such as "Management of human consumption" in the "Implementation" section.
Sourcing
- A good rule of thumb is to source every unusual claim, every direct quote, every statistic, and every paragraph. Although the article includes many citations, some sections have none. An example is the short "Chemicals" section.
I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Most helpful. Many thanks Ealdgyth and Finetooth. We will keep plugging away at it. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, avoid linking words that most English-speaking readers would know, such as ocean or atmosphere. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]