Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Ecosystem management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  1. Numbered list item

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KNGeist.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siperez. Peer reviewers: Isagreen, Liv Davis, Hnworth, HRVEF.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Isagreen — Edit Suggestions
[edit]

• First Note: Potentially an excessive use of quotations in the formulation section, as the first bit has multiple quotes in a row. • Second Note: I noticed that you removed the Keystone Pipeline example for issues of relevance to ecosystem management. I do wonder if removing the example was the right call, or if a significant rework to make it fit would be better. I only suggest this because it is a very popular, recent, and potentially relevant case that might communicate well to a larger audience. • Third Note: While the overall tone of the article now seems less argumentative, it still feels a bit academic in tone. I think it could use some edits for a more applied approach in writing style so that the information is communicated a bit more like an encyclopedia and less like a conference paper. This is not the case for every sentence/section, but it happens several times throughout. • I have very few suggestions as this article is in great shape. I think there could still be some minor changes here and there, but nothing to serious. I really look forward to seeing the final product, and hope to see more in the future on the economic aspects of this work! Isagreen (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Minor addition

[edit]

I added an example of stakeholders underneath that heading, as well as adding a few sources in regards to stakeholders. Another note: I would maybe reduce the use of quotations, as I am not sure that Wikipedia articles are meant to have lots of direct quotations. This article is fantastic though, and I can't think of much else to edit! Great work! Mggale (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC) (talk)Reply

Source removal

[edit]

I undid this edit by MrOllie who called it "citespam". I'm not sure why - it's a highly-cited source, certainly more so than a lot of the other sources in the article. It seems entirely appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm more puzzled, seeing similar edits across my watchlist: restoration ecology, sustainability. What's going on here? Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, every citation we have to Robert Lackey was added by one of three accounts: Phyllis Smyth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bart49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or Togue1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All three of these accounts are unusually focused on adding the works on Professor Lackey, often adding the cites without adding content - and in a few cases, adding a Lackey cite to direct quotes written by someone else. This seems like a case of WP:CITESPAM to me. If any of these cites are useful afterall, please feel free to restore. - MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MrOllie: rather than forcing me to dig through all your edits, could you just revert the additions? This is a solid source you're removing. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This was my first time reading the Ecosystem Management article. I was very impressed at the scope and range of ideas that the author(s) provide here. It includes a history of the topic, stakeholders, and approaches. The wording moves fluently and the structure is supportive of the ideas expressed in the writing. I like that each section is formatted in a way that offers a lot of information, but is not overwhelming. It is a unique way to get the ideas across. There are also a lot of pictures that are clear, relevant, and aesthetically pleasing. I felt very informed after reading this article and was surprised to see the amount of content that the article provides. Overall, this article has a great design, relevant information, and seems to offer significant material to the reader. Ravanvoo (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Marion - Very minor additions

[edit]

This article is excellent and has seen a lot of improvement since the time I saw it before. I have added a couple of sources and linked some terms to other wiki articles as to give readers a clearer insight into some topics. I also re-formatted some sources to make them more similar to one another. Great work! Mggale (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2021

= Rachel V final review

[edit]

The ecosystem management article is one that continues to impress me. I love the imagery and the scope of the article. It is very inclusive and clearly written with intent. I added a few links to the article, but did not see very many grammatical or contextual flaws. Sierra has done a fantastic job cleaning up this piece and bringing it up to what I believe resembles a Featured Article! Ravanvoo (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hanna W final review

[edit]

I think this is an extremely strong article that meets all the criteria for a Good Article! It is highly informative and well-written, well-structured and easily readable, uses images throughout, and is very well cited. I also think that other comments on the talk page were clearly taken into account during the editing process, since the number of quotations is now at a level in line with other Wikipedia articles. I added a few links to other articles, but other than that made no edits. Great job! Weilh (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Field Ecology and Conservation Technology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 5 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spillers03 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Spillers03 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply