User talk:BCM163/sandbox

Hi All, peer reviewer here.. very interesting approach and topic. I like the addition of more US focused cases and ties of environmental degradation due to changes in EPA that will have effects on the communities with TEK. The government management vs TEK management will be a good place for some extra relevancy. The things I would suggest would be to edit and cite the existing "faces of TEK" section, seems like they have a lot of unsupported info there. The cases covering TEK from the existing article also doesn't seem to have a lot to it. Are you considering eliminating those cases? Maybe consider doing so, rather than having to go through citing everything. Anyway, just some suggestions, look forward to seeing it progress... good luck! Argucb6 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Super Anonymous Peer Review

Dear sir or madam,

Your addition of an article on TEK will certainly cure Wikipedia of an outrageous deficiency. Clearly, you know your stuff. Though I cannot supply you with an informed opinion on the subject material, what I can do is related to you how well I believe you piece, as it is written today, scores against the following criteria:

1. A Good Lead
2. A Clear Structure
3. A Balanced Presentation
4. A Neutral Tone
5. Reliable sources

1) Your lead provides an excellent overview of the clearly multifaceted thought on TEK. Because there are so many parts to it, it seemed a but long to me. Is there any way that you could trim it down? The overwhelm I felt when looking at it may, admittedly, have come from the fact that I rarely come across articles that do not feature na image or chart. Do you plan on adding on/a few at some point?

2) While the bones of your structure are clearly there, it may be helpful (for categorization's sake) is you upgrade some of your titles to a grander heading type. The progression of subtopics was on point!

3) Because I am not an expert in your topic, I am not sure if there are points of view that you are not including... are there any schools of thought that might contradict what you are saying?

4) Your tone comes across as neutral to me. On the subject of tone, however, it has a bit too much of a "voice," in my opinion. I felt like I was reading a good essay, rather than a robotic Wikipedia article. I am no expert, so I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, but I think you should be aware of it.

5) I think you should probably go through and cite some sources before you add any more material to the page! You have o much already, and it's only gonna get harder to sift though the different origins of each part.

Overall, lovely work. I'm excited to see where this goes next~

A Response to the Peer Reviews

Thank you for the helpful peer reviews so far! Yes, as we progress further we will make sure that this page is more updated with titles and more relevant information. We (this project group) will discuss with each other about any images we may want to add. I agree it is important to make sure that we also think about any other schools of thought that may contradict with what we have so far and we will make sure to cite sources if we use information that we found from those sources! Again, thank you for your reviews and we will keep what you have said in mind as we go forward! Dl12345 (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback - Garshaw

Nice work so far! Very comprehensive! I appreciate the unbiased language. The organization is thorough and you contain lots of sections, which is great if other wikipedians want to contribute.

- You mention intellectual property in the lead, but it is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Make sure the lead covers everything in the body of the article. However, the clarification between tradition ecological and environmental knowledge is a good addition.

This is a great start. Just clean up the formatting a bit (proper TOC, citations section etc...), expand upon your sections, remove editorial notes and you should be good to go! GAA8423 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)