|Ecosystem has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Ecosystem was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital||(Rated C-class)|
2: 2007 - 2011
3: 2012 - 2014
- 1 Nitrogen cycle image is wrong
- 2 Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016
- 3 Where to put grasslands among terrestrial ecosystem types?
- 4 Wikipedia Primary School invitation
- 5 Semi-protected edit request
Nitrogen cycle image is wrong
Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
but hey this is a frod though and they have to die all animals have to die
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Where to put grasslands among terrestrial ecosystem types?
Among the types of ecosystem I miss something, what covers the area of grasslands??? But it might not be grasslands but a broader term?
- The consideration of your question has raised some doubts in me. Reading the section Classification and subsection Types gives the impression that the link between both is not clear, because the exposition in classification does not lead to the information in types. So instead of offering a solution, I am adding more questions.--Auró (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia Primary School invitation
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before February 28, 2016 as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been reviewed by an external expert. Notes and remarks written by the external expert are available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. We'd like to thank Mariasole Bianco for her work and for her helpful notes. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere (talk)
To facilitate the editing process, I copied Mariasole notes below.
Quality of the Summary
Is the summary of the article a complete, thorough, and concise introduction to the topic? How do you think the summary could be improved? Which meaningful data are missing? Is there something that you find too much detailed for a general overview of the topic?
Yes, the summary is a complete and concise introduction to the topic. I think some areas like Ecosystem goods and services, Ecosystem Management could be more detailed and explained (see comments in review). The nutrient cycling and the decomposition sections may be too dense for a general overview of the topic.
I also believe that information about the relationship between ecosystems and climate change is missing and should be integrated (see comments in review and additional references provided)
Structure and style of the article
Is the article properly presenting the topic for a general public? Does the article provide a complete and easy-to-navigate structure? Which paragraph would you add, unify or split into different parts? Please provide a list of suggestions. Is the article well written and understandable at a high school level?
Some information from the introduction and in ecosystem processes was repetitive. I highlighted this information in the pdf to bring it to your attention. Some information may be too dense for a high school level such as in nutrient cycling and in ecosystem ecology. I noted these sections as well. I will add more information about
- the economic value of ecosystem goods and services
- protected areas as ecosystem management tools
I will also add a section about ecosystem reaction/adaptation to global stressors like climate change
Is the article comprehensive of major facts related to the topic? Is the article adequately placing the subject in context? What does it miss? Please provide a list of topics you think should be included in the article (suggestions must be related to bibliography). Do you find that some arguments are not meaningful or representative of the topic for a general public. What should be deleted? Please explain why.
Yes, the article successfully goes into detail about major facts and processes related to the topic. I think the anthropogenic section can be expanded on more. Give more examples and historical data in this section as it something we are currently living and facing. I also think a section on viable solutions for how to reduce and prevent anthropogenic effects is necessary. I’ve listed some examples in my edits.
International and local dimension
Is the article neutral (it presents general and acknowledged views fairly and without bias)? Is the article representative of the international dimension and consolidated research about the topic? If applicable, does the article feature examples from all over the world (no localisms)? Please draft a list of what is missing with related references.
I think the article does a nice job of providing examples from around the world however I believe that more example about marine and freshwater ecosystems should be made. The article does not include any bias.
References (essential to allow the articles to be improved)
Is the list of publications comprehensive and updated? Does it list the fundamental monographs and papers? Please provide primary/generic and secondary/original resources which need to be included and suggest the list of publications which should be removed.
- EbA http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/oceans_and_cc_brochure_final_1011.pdf (page 4)
- Global IUCN Red List of ecosystems http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062111
- Ecosystem Services and Climate Change http://hal.cirad.fr/cirad-01264738/
- The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital http://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/5983
- Placing marine protected areas onto the ecosystem-based management seascape
- Natural solutions: protected areas helping people cope with climate change.
- Protected area "A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_area
- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stability http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/biodiversity-and-ecosystemstability-17059965
Semi-protected edit request
I am a new comer to the Earth & Space Science Edit-a-Thon at the American Geophysical Union. Suggestion to the "Ecosystem Services and Goods" section, in the sentence "While Gretchen Daily's original definition distinguished between ecosystem goods and ecosystem services, Robert Costanza and colleagues' later work and that of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment lumped all of these together as ecosystem services", add citation of Daily, G. C.; Söderqvist T; Aniyar S; Arrow K; Dasgupta P; Ehrlich PR; et al. (21 July 2000). "ECOLOGY: The Value of Nature and the Nature of Value". Science. 289 (5478): 395–396. doi:10.1126/science.289.5478.395. PMID 10939949. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)