Talk:Environmental history/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: fixed on dab, could not resolve John McNeill as no article exists on an environmental historian of that name. Currently directs to disambiguation page listing two politicians and a diplomat. Changed to John McNeill (environmental historian).[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: Found and tagged one dead link.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The manual of style requires internal consistency. This is not apparent in the Bibliography section. This section should also be split into Works cited and Further reading. Please see WP:FNNR.

Also see notes on layout of imagery below.

Advocacy The main article link to advocacy is not appropriate as the article linked to is about advocacy in general. Perhaps use the word in the text and wikilink it there.

Further, that narratives of this kind are not only boring and repetitive but also actually mislead due to their excessive simplicity. Further to what?

Spelling environmnet? Check spelling and grammar throughout.

Overall, the article is written in a text book style. Better to introduce different perceptions of the subject by mentioning who said what. Although cited pretty well, points of view about it are often presented as fact rather than attributed correctly. Remember that you are writing for the general reader. This does not mean that the article has to be dumbed down, but much of it is fairly inaccessible at present.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
One dead external link as noted above.

Currently one cannot tell whether the cited works are books or journals. Publisher details should be there, also ISBN or ISSN or DOI numbers. All of these works in the bibliography would benefit from consistent citing using the appropriate citation templates.

Refs #36 [3] and #39 [4] should aslo have appropriate citation templates to list author and publisher and publication date.

ref #69 leads to a search page (after I corrected the URL. This is not a reference. Please cite title, page number of book, publisher, etc.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No mention of environmental history in South America, Australia, Africa and Asia. The artcile should reflect a global view. If there really are no such studies intehse areas then please mention it, but I suspect that that there are.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
'Perhaps Hippocrates, ancient Greek father of medicine, was an early environmental determinist when, in his Airs, Waters, Places he asserted that different cultures and human temperaments could be related to the surroundings in which peoples lived. Perhaps represents a POV. Please avoid weasel words.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The file File:British Empire 1897.jpg sandwiches the text awakwardly and is way too large. Please see WP:MOS#Images for guidance on this. The same for File:Machupicchuandthesacredvalley.jpg, File:Penn oil 1864.jpg, File:Muir and Roosevelt restored.jpg, File:HistoricalMarkerUSGeorgiaPioneerTurpentiningExperiment.jpg, File:Christopher Columbus3.jpg, File:Rice terraces.png.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There are a number of problems to be addressed, that will take some time, so I am going to fail this nomination at this time. Please address the problems outlined and take to peer review before re-submitting at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

I have been asked by User:Granitethighs for further clarification on three things I noted in the review:

Could you be more explicit in what you mean by “text book” style, indicating how this might differ from “encyclopaedia” style and “Wikipedia encyclopaedia style” in particular. This would be a great help for my future editing.

Environmental history addresses three core issues.[2] Firstly, nature itself and its change through time – nature is more than a cultural construct, it is a physical reality. This issue deals with the impact of humans on historical changes in Earth's land, water, atmosphere and biological systems: included here would be issues of climate, energy exchanges, human resource use, and interaction with ecosystems as well as major natural events such as floods, volcanic eruptions, wildfires and the spread of diseases. Secondly, how we use nature – the environmental consequences of socioeconomic activity resulting from increasing population, more effective technology and changing patterns of production and consumption. Environmental history maps aspects of the transformation that has occurred as the basic human physical need for food, shelter, mobility, water and materials has, over the years, and through complex social organization been converted into industrial agriculture, megacities, modern transport systems, extensive dams, pipelines and water infrastructure, and the sophisticated technology of the manufacturing industry.[3] Other key themes in this category include the separation from nature that occurred when nomadic hunter-gatherer communities developed settled agriculture in the neolithic revolution, the effects of colonial expansion and settlement communities, and the environmental and human consequences of the industrial and technological revolutions.[4] Thirdly, how we think about nature – the way our attitudes, beliefs and values influence our interaction with nature shaped, as they are, by our myths, legends, ideology, aesthetics, religion and science. Is fairly impenetrable in my opinion, I had to read it through three times to gain some understanding.

The themes used to express these historical dimensions are many. A more traditional historical approach is to analyse the transformation of the globe’s ecology through themes like: the separation of man from nature during the neolithic revolution, imperialism and colonial expansion, exploration, agricultural change, the effects of the industrial and technological revolution, and urban expansion but also the more environmental topics of human impact through its influences on forestry, fire, climate change, sustainability and so on. “The increasingly sophisticated history of colonization and migration can take on an environmental aspect, tracing the pathways of ideas and species around the globe and indeed is bringing about an increased use of such analogies and ‘colonial’ understandings of processes within European history. This brief balance sheet has both positives and negatives, and plenty of unrealized potential.”[25] The importance of the colonial enterprise in Africa, the Caribbean and Indian Ocean has been detailed by Richard Grove.[4] Much of the literature consists of case-studies targeted at the global, regional, national and local levels Similar - would benefit from copy-editing by someone with a good command of English, but no previous involvement in the subject. - "Stand in the shoes of your readers!"

Could you give me an example or two of parts of the article that are “inaccessible” as, apparently, “much of it” is inaccessible at present. Again, this would be a great help for my future editing.

Really this is just the same thing as that noted in the first point. Stand in the shoes of your audiencce, take things steadily, don't assume that the audience is stupid, but don't assume that they are graduates. Simpler, less complex sentences, check out Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Your writing is good, but it could be better for an encyclopaedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what you mean when you say “No mention of environmental history in South America, Australia, Africa and Asia. The article should reflect a global view. If there really are no such studies intehse areas then please mention it, but I suspect that that there are.” There are whole sections on the places you list – I must be misunderstanding you in some way.

Ah, well you have sections on geographic areas of the world, but where are teh Asian, African, South Amwerican scholars writing on this. At the moment the key works (with the exception of Ranjan Chakrabarti) are in English by First World authors, and published by US or European publsihers. What do the Japanese, Chinese, Aficans, South Americans, or for that matter Norwegians, Russians, Spanish, Greeks, etc say in their own languages, their own publications, their own scholarly communities? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jez - I'll see what I can do with your constructive suggestions shortly.Granitethighs 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]