Talk:Life cycle thinking

Score: 8/10

=Intro= Introduction could be shorter. It should concisely introduce Life Cycle Thinking; the additional information and examples will be more useful in the later sections. Text is too colloquial--because this is a formal entry, it should be more professional/academic, less conversational. In order to make the introduction stronger, the group should try to distinguish Life Cycle Thinking from Life Cycle Analysis/Assessment rather than waiting until the "Approaches" section, since the two topics are tied so closely together.

=Goals= It would be stronger for the group to either use bullet points or to type their thoughts out. Doing both negates the importance and is very redundant. The paragraph reads like an essay rather than an article.

Additionally, some of the bullets are sentences (with periods), while others are clauses (no periods). It should be uniform.

=Sectors= We like the way the sectors are laid out. It is clear, concise, and explanative.

But, on the other hand, since the group is talking about Life Cycle Thinking, try to use more conceptual terms and show the importance of thinking in the different sectors as opposed to trying to give examples. Answer the question: why is Life Cycle Thinking important for these sectors? For example, the "Retail" paragraph, talks about product life cycle, but does not touch on Life Cycle Thinking.

=Approaches= The formatting is incorrect. There are many different text sizes, colors, and a peculiar box under LCM, IPP, and SCP. Furthermore, the links to the different articles should be within the body of the text rather than their headings.

=Applications= We really like the delineation between "Consumers", "Businesses", and "Governments". It is clear, and makes an important distinction.

=Policies= Great! Provides good background on the application. Our only concern is that "Policies" are applications of Life Cycle Thinking. Could the group combine these by putting them under the "Governments" section of "Applications"?

If the second paragraph under American Policy is important, then it should be rewritten to be tailored to the United States, rather than having the focus on North America.

=Importance of Life Cycle Thinking= This is a great and important paragraph. We suggest moving it following the introduction.

=General Comments=
 * Life Cycle Thinking/Assessment is capitalized in some areas, and not in others. Should be consistent.
 * Some of the paragraphs read more like an essay rather than an article; it is too wordy. The group has high quality information, and we would not want it to get lost in the text.  Try to be concise--the group does not need as many introductory sentences.  Paragraphs introducing different topics are unnecessary (i.e. Life Cycle Thinking in Policy)
 * Do not need as many everyday examples--distraction from the professionalism of the article.
 * In explaining Life Cycle ______, try not to use "Life Cycle" in the definition.
 * No sources of images seem to be correctly linked
 * Page is not formatted correctly. "Introduction" should be a heading, not a Level 2.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life cycle thinking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112081845/http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ to http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion and critical assessment
This article has already been flagged as having multiple issues. One thing that I think it could benefit from is a section discussing the limitations of this approach, including a balanced critical assessment of life cycle thinking. This would help to balance it out, in my view. Totorotroll (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Greenwashing
The way the article is written smacks of greenwashing, as if the inevitable result of such thinking will lead us to salvation. It won't, it's basically the bare minimum anyone can do. ZadieTwinge (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)