Talk:Wood-pasture hypothesis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * Can't see any good reason to have refs [1] .. [16] in lead section. Curiously, nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 9..15 occur only in lead. Well, if the lead is a summary of cited text in the article body, then all the lead refs can safely be removed ... if you want to keep the refs that occur only there, they need to be moved to support the text in the article body. There are two possibilities, basically: a) the refs are redundant as the main text is already cited, though they may perhaps lend a little colour or weight (also a risk of overciting, of course); b) the refs are introducing "new" ideas into the lead, and the refs-and-ideas together need to be moved out into the article body (and possibly later summarized in the lead) ... For example, the phrase "pristine nature" does not occur in the article body at all, so it's a bit surprising that it occurs twice in the lead and is supported by three citations: presumably all the supporting material on that subject needs to go into the article body. Probably it will be best to move everything from "Although others, including Oliver Rackham..." onwards out of the lead, to reorganise the article body to suit the "new" material, and then to rewrite the lead to summarize the article concisely (mentioning each section is a good place to start).

Names and definitions

 * A definitions section needs to be brief rather than discursive. "goes by many names, since Vera ..." "Therefore, over the years ...", "a great many of names" (?) are all way too flowery for this context.


 * "and literal translations thereof." This is English Wikipedia so we needn't worry about what happens in other languages; and "thereof" really doesn't work in modern English anyway.


 * "As defined by Vera[17] the general area his ideas refer to covers Western...": Please be brief and to the point. Perhaps "Vera's ideas apply to Western...".


 * I consider this done, please tell me if you disagree. --AndersenAnders (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

High-forest theory

 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but Vera was responding to high-forest theory, so "Contrary to Vera's ideas" seems to be back-to-front as a way of leading in to this section? I think you need to lead off here with the clear view that high-forest theory is the starting point. Why not begin with Cotta? You could say something like "In 1817, Heinrich Cotta proposed what is now called high-forest theory. This is the view that the vegetation of Europe since the ice age is primarily closed-canopy forest. ..."


 * The chapter begins with three paragraphs which are not grouped into any subsections: in fact, the chapter has the bizarre (unbalanced) section structure

2 High-forest theory

2.1 Large herbivores in relation to the high-forest theory

2.1.1 Background: grazers and browsers


 * I suggest that you make the first paragraph a section named "Heinrich Cotta's 1817 high-forest theory" (or something of that sort).


 * I suggest you then have a section on "Frederic Clements's (date?) linear succession theory".


 * You might split the very long central paragraph into chunks on Clements himself, then "Arthur Tansley's dynamic processes" (or whatever).


 * The paragraph ends with apparently uncited material, I've tagged it.


 * The third paragraph (data) sits oddly with the section, as you've switched from people and history to databases and inference. Perhaps make it a named subsection.


 * I consider this as done, tell me if you think otherwise.--AndersenAnders (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Large herbivores in relation to the high-forest theory

 * This section is very dense and difficult to read. For instance "Here, herbivore biomass reaches a maximum of 16,000 kilograms (35,000 lb) per 1 square kilometre (1,000,000 m2) while the mammoth steppe with an estimated 10,500 kilograms (23,100 lb) per km² and Britain during the Eemian interglacial with an equivalent of more than 2.5 fallow deer per ha, equivalent to more than 15,000 kilograms (33,000 lb) per km², fall within a similar range." is a 62-word sentence and remarkably difficult to read, even for native English speakers with Use of English qualifications and Biology degrees. Please go through the whole section (... the whole article) from the point of view of a non-native English speaker, and simplify it.


 * Done. If you think it can be further simplified, I would appreciate if you tell me how. --AndersenAnders (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly improving. Perhaps "deemed an adequate measure" would be better as "seen as necessary". I guess my feeling is that it still takes a very long time to say that a) the Lotka-Volterra model (etc) doesn't work very well in practice, and b) that predators may be unable to control megafauna as the adults at least are hard to kill. Maybe if you focus on saying those two things briefly, the section could be a lot shorter and simpler.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Background: grazers and browsers

 * "A fundamental factor that influences the way in which large herbivores exercise an influence on the landscape level is related to differences in feeding strategies." ... the "is related to" is very weak, and "A fundamental factor that influences the way in which" isn't any better. Why not just say


 * "Large herbivores feed in different ways. Some, like roe deer (etc) browse on woody plants; others like horse (etc) graze on grasses and forbs. In between these two strategies are animals like the wisent (etc). Grazers tend to be more social and to forage more intensively..." Something simple like that?


 * The second paragraph could similarly begin "None of Europe's remaining large wild herbivores is an obligate grazer." (note: short clear sentence). Then go on from there, equally crisply please.


 * Better now? AndersenAnders (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Vera's alternative hypothesis

 * Well, the section's name has a kind of historical justification but it will come across as extremely curious to many visitors to this article: Vera's hypothesis = Wood-pasture hypothesis = the subject of this article. I suggest you simply call it "Frans Vera" - it is short and to the point.


 * Once again, the text is much denser (more of a canopy than a wood-pasture?) than it needs to be.
 * "Vera's hypothesis, in contrast to the high-forest theory, holds that although the warming climate of the onsetting Holocene in Europe provided conditions that would allow for the formation of a closed-canopy forest, wild herbivores kept vast areas in temperate Europe relatively open, park-like."
 * Well, that's quite a mouthful for the chapter's opening sentence.
 * Why not begin:
 * Vera argued that in the Holocene, wild herbivores kept vast areas of temperate Europe relatively open and park-like.
 * I'm not sure you even need to repeat all the warming climate and closed-canopy, you've said that at great length in the section above already.


 * Perhaps you could cautiously trim some of the verbiage in the rest of the section. Do you really need to say "however", "phenomenon commonly referred to as", "often prevail", "it was noted that", "Moreover ... also", "has also shown that", "associated with or dependent on", "Thus, it may be argued that"... (and so on). it's a lot of academic apparatus: this is an encyclopedia article which must serve as an introduction to the topic for non-experts.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

 * The use of "Criticism" (or "Controversies", etc) is deprecated as it tends to become a ragbag. It is usually best to split up such a section and move the individual items to the sections where they belong.


 * Who's "Birks"? Begin with full name whenever you introduce somebody, and say what they are, like "The English botanist John Birks".


 * "have been called" ... "sparked much debate" ... "there is consensus building" ... "others have highlighted: by whom? Please 1) supply full names etc, as you'll do for "Birks" (above); 2) write in the active voice (not "has been called by John Doe" but "John Doe calls ...").


 * "would have varied" ... "would have been comparably high" ... "would have probably covered": what's with the complicated tense? Suggest simple past, like "varied", or perhaps "must have varied". Similarly "This would have made the early to mid-Holocene Europe more forested than" -> "The early to mid-Holocene Europe was more forested than". Please fix all instances.

Instead of "criticism" I'm currently thinking of something of a synopsis. To contrast the two competing theories first, and then explain how a combination of both extremes is now generally favoured. Essentially, this is also what the "criticism" section is now, but a different headline like "discussion" or "summary" would perhaps get around the issue? Thoughts?
 * Overviews, summaries, and synopses aren't favoured in Wikipedia articles (the lead is as close to any of those as we get). "Reactions and assessments" is still very weak, saying little more than that there has been a lot of talk. Perhaps "Towards a resolution" captures your intended meaning.


 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The baseline: Quaternary glacial cycles and the Quaternary extinction event

 * The prize for the most enormous mammoth Pleistocene Wikipedia section giga-headline that goes on and on? Please trim. You have some other pretty long specimens ("Underrepresentation of grasses and insect-pollinated plants in pollen deposits").


 * Better now? --AndersenAnders (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Now I wonder if the text can't be shortened as well.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Associational resistance

 * "Generally, the term associational resistance may describe facilitating relationships between plants that grow close to each other, against both biotic and abiotic stresses like browsing, drought, or salinity. In relation to grazed ecosystems, it can allow for the recruitment of trees and other palatable woody species, via thorny nurse bushes, in these environments."
 * I don't think this is a good way to begin a section. Please begin by stating, very simply, what the thing IS, not what "the term .. may describe". Dictionary entries are about terms; Wikipedia articles are about the concepts named by those terms. "Associational resistance" is already a highly academic phrase; if we absolutely have to use it, then explain it clearly.


 * "The consequent hypothesis is known as the associational resistance and aggregational resistance theory."
 * This is uncited as well as unreadable, and it comes across as an unimportant aside: why would the reader want to know that? Suggest we cut it.


 * The "In temperate Europe" paragraph


 * The paragraph ends with an extensive uncited passage: I've tagged it and two more paragraphs below.


 * "Since many of these species are analogously replaced by either closely related or ecologically similar species across the temperate northern hemisphere, a comparable scheme could probably apply to these regions as well.[citation needed]" --- not clear why we're wandering off-topic here, specially without citation. Why not just cut it.


 * "It is now generally considered that": please cut (here and any similar phrases throughout the article).
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Shifting mosaics and cyclic succession

 * The diagram has a lot of white space around the outside and between the objects. Please close it up a bit.


 * The first paragraph takes a lot of words to describe the diagram. Since it's now illustrated, perhaps the text could be shortened.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Implications for environment protection and conservation practice

 * The section spends a lot of space recapitulating the wood-pasture and high-forest theories. I think the whole thing could be much simplified and shortened, as its basic message is just that conserving grasslands is the key. No?
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ecology of wood-pastures

 * Not sure why the species lists alternate between common and scientific names? Almost all those listed have common names, and the lists are in any case rather too long: you can't possibly be comprehensive here, so why not be brief and clear?


 * "in many regions of the world": why are you suddenly going intercontinental? The article seems to be exclusively European? Suggest we focus consistently unless there's very good reason.


 * "in particular, for various reasons," ... which adds what, exactly? Suggest delete.


 * Please introduce dehesas: I know it's linked but a brief gloss would help.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Cultural significance

 * Section heading feels wrong, as you're not writing about the significance of Vera for human culture exactly. "Traditional land use" or "Traditional farming practices" perhaps?


 * The whole of this article is constructed with rather long sentences. That makes reading difficult for many people.

For instance, the sentence


 * "This is especially true for regions where the pasturing of grazing animals has been carried out for hundreds and thousands of years, and phrases such as the old English saying "The thorn is the mother of the oak", referring to the recruitment of oaks inside thorny shrubs, attest to the knowledge about processes such as associational resistance as part of old traditional farming knowledge that was present in rural communities well before the theory itself was proposed in its current form."


 * has 81 words, way too many for many of our readers, and an exceptionally complex clausal structure. I suggest you go through the whole article and simplify the sentences.


 * I have revised the example sentence and changed the headline. Is it better now? I'll go through the whole article and see what can be shortened. AndersenAnders (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, and good luck with the rest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sergey Zimov's megaherbivore decline model

 * "Main article: Pleistocene Park": it is immediately evident that a discussion of Zimov's model cannot be a summary of an article about a park. It may be a "further" link but not "main".


 * Curiously, "Pleistocene Park" does not even contain the keyword "decline". I see a bit on overhunting and extinction of "wildlife" (megaherbivores, presumably) but there seems to be quite a mismatch between the two articles.


 * "of the latter thesis": do you know anybody who talks like this? Reword, please.


 * "While Vera's hypothesis focuses on temperate regions and especially temperate Europe, an argumentatively related model has more recently been proposed for high latitude regions of modern taiga and tundra biomes, where formerly mammoth steppe predominated." : Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level=24; Gunning Fog Index=27.7; Word Count=35. Sentences like this should be split up for readability. There are many other examples.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Images

 * The two lead images need to be a bit larger, maybe |upright=1.35


 * File:Langå-Egeskov-egetræer.jpg needs to be labelled with the name of the place, Langå Egeskov, Jutland, Denmark.


 * Can't see the point of the vertical multiple image in "Oak and hazel": you get a vertical arrangement by placing the images separately, and the last image is way too big this way (over twice the size of the other images); further, the effect is a wall of stuff on the right, a barrage of images-and-text behind a rectangular wall. Better would be a horizontal gallery with all the images roughly the same size; I'd suggest as a simple and effective format, and you can provide a title to show that the whole thing is a single unit, too.


 * The image File:Light Into The Beech Forest (90256921).jpeg in "Shifted baselines" is too large (use |upright), and is doubtfully relevant here: does Vera say that pollard forests count as Wood-pasture, or what? Does another scholar discuss pollarding as a related practice?
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

References, Sources, Further reading

 * The sources used span the subject well, and are nearly all scientific.


 * Surprised to see no authors at all linked to their Wikipedia articles with "|author-link=John Doe": there are quite a few well-known people there including Oliver Rackham, Arthur Tansley, Heinrich Cotta, Sean B. Carroll (who is spelt wrong...), Isabella Tree, ... The goal is easy navigability for the reader.


 * [17] is cited only to ResearchGate, which is not itself a reliable source: it isn't a journal and it doesn't review anything. The source is however a book, so the citation text should be replaced with a cite book template ... the slight complication is that it's no good just citing a whole book (makes verification difficult) so you need to specify the page numbers you are interested in. The 12 different uses of the ref probably need different page specs, so it might be wise to put the book in a "Sources" section just before "Further reading" and to cite it 12 times with using the relevant page numbers in the text.


 * [81] is missing its URL.
 * Done IMO AndersenAnders (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary
This article will need quite a bit of work to come up to GA standard. The principal issue is that the explanation is long, repetitive, and difficult to read. As a result, the article does not succeed in its basic purpose, which is to introduce its subject to Wikipedia's readers. It is possible that the Guild of Copy Editors could help by simplifying the English. I am happy to work with you to improve the article, even if this takes a little time. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed assessment. I think a lot of it boils down to the fact that German, not English, is my native language. This means that a) I'm used to long and complicated sentences and b) I honestly don't know which expressions feel "natural" in English and which don't. But I do understand the need for concise wording. I think you raise valuable points, and as I said, I'm willing to invest time in improving the article. If you are willing as well, I would like to go through the process with you. AndersenAnders (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see... ok, well, I mentioned the Guild already, and I'm English too. I guess the main thing is willingness, and the main task is making the sentences short and clear, "Scientist X discovered fact Y.[123]", which shouldn't be so hard really. Let's go to it. There's no particular time limit as long as progress is being made steadily. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As you may have seen, I have started to implement your suggestions. Please let me know if you think my edits make anything worse. The image File:Light Into The Beech Forest (90256921).jpeg in "Shifted baselines" is meant to illustrate the medieval silvicultural practices that Vera cites as analogies to the ancient landscape. Pasture trees are often pollards as well, so the transitions are fluid. And basically, pollarding and woodland grazing have the same effect: more light reaches the ground -> more biodiversity. Pollarding is one of the ancient land use practices that have maintained the biodiversity of the open landscape over the centuries. As for author links in the references, I was simply not aware of the feature. AndersenAnders (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's helping little by little. It would be helpful to me if you could reply under each of my items above rather than here (i.e. please move the comments to where they belong) so that I can see which items you feel have been addressed and decide if I'm satisfied with the response. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea, will do AndersenAnders (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @Chiswick Chap,
 * two days ago this paper came out, which is of enormous relevance to the discussion and the article. Not only, but partly because of it (and because of the improved understanding of vegetation during the Eemian interglacial that it gives us) I am thinking of writing a new section dedicated solely to the Eemian. It wouldn't have to be long, but I think it would be useful to have such a section to explain the Eemian landscape, similarities and differences to the Holocene, and what might be the reason for them. What do you think?
 * It certainly looks highly relevant, so a subsection would seem sensible.
 * Meanwhile, I will keep working on your suggestions whenever I find the time. AndersenAnders (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but GANs are supposed to terminate in finite time ... which it won't if you discover a vital new paper each month ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware! AndersenAnders (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The changes are also making the article even longer; a clear goal of this review has been a shorter, clearer text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think placing "The prehistoric baseline" above "Towards a resolution" would make for a more logical succession of argument? AndersenAnders (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mmm probably yes. Actually "Towards a resolution" feels like it should be the last or almost-last section... so why have we got four or five more sections after it? The 'High-forest' section sets the scene, the 'Frans Vera' section sets out the arguments, and the Resolution section leads to a conclusion ... and then we wander about in the woods for rather a long time after that ... doesn't feel ideal. Maybe needs a rethink there to bring out the logic? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree AndersenAnders (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Succession in grazed ecosystems" could probably go under "Frans Vera", as a subsection following "Main arguments". Essentially, this section lays out his arguments for how succession works in his system. But as the other sections (Implications, Ecology, Land use, Sergey Zimov) are not based directly on his work but are extensions of it, they could still go after the Resolution? AndersenAnders (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regroup what you can under Vera, and group the rest as best you can, even if it's just "Later approaches" or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How about this? AndersenAnders (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Much better, the logic is coming through at last. Now I think it's time for you to go through the small "*" suggestions above and mark them as actioned (when you've done them...). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I have addressed all issues satisfactorily, I believe. If you agree I will continue by revising the lead. Otherwise, please tell me where you think the article still needs improving. AndersenAnders (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that will do fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)