Talk:Ecosystem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 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.
July 9, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ecology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ecoregions
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of each of the earth's ecoregions on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems ecology.
 
WikiProject Sanitation (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject South Africa / PSP SA (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Wikipedia Primary School project.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Nitrogen cycle image is wrong[edit]

It has been translated into Turkish, I tried to see how to revert it back to the English ver but I don't get how these things are stored on commons. 142.58.240.61 (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016[edit]

but hey this is a frod though and they have to die all animals have to die


71.29.216.22 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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?[edit]

Among the types of ecosystem I miss something, what covers the area of grasslands??? But it might not be grasslands but a broader term?

a steppeWinterysteppe (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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[edit]

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)

Review of Ecosystems.pdf
Ecosystem MS edit.pdf

To facilitate the editing process, I copied Mariasole notes below.

Quality of the Summary[edit]

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[edit]

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

Content[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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.

Semi-protected edit request[edit]

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. 192.102.233.66 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)