User:Isagreen/Draft:Capitalocene/Siperez Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Savlatt


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Isagreen/Draft:Capitalocene


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Draft:Capitalocene

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review #2


 * The tone of the text is balanced and neutral, and multiple perspectives around the Capitalocene concept are presented. The topics discussed in your article are interesting and the writing is informative!
 * A more descriptive title to the first General section may be useful for readers who are quickly skimming the article – maybe something like “Origins of the Capitalocene concept”. Also, to this section it would be helpful to include information of who/where/when this term came from, if known. Currently, it is unclear how long this discourse around the term has been going.
 * Particularly to the lead and Indigenous Peoples and the Anthropocene section, it would be beneficial to add additional sources to support the claims of the text. Currently, there are several paragraphs with only one or two citations. However, the majority of sources that are cited are reputable and peer-reviewed.
 * It is unclear to me if the Indigenous Peoples and the Anthropocene section will be added to the Capitalocene or the Anthropocene article – it seems more relevant to the Anthropocene. There is also an article specifically discussing Native American use of fire in ecosystems for which this may be appropriate. Additionally, you may want to consider revising the title of this section to something more representative of the text as Native Americans, but no other indigenous communities, are discussed.
 * It might be helpful if the image that accompanies the lead had a slightly more descriptive caption that how it related to the text (i.e., how does the Flint Water crisis relate to the Capitalocene?).

Peer Review #1
 * Overall, an interesting topic that is presented in a clear, balanced manner. The introductory sentence clearly contextualizes the concept, and overall, the lead provides a well-formed overview of the article’s content. Portions of the text could be streamlined to make this section more concise; for example, “women, indigenous, non-capitalistic, and poorer communities” could be simplified to “marginalized communities”. The content considers multiple opposing views on the topic and does not appear to favor one. The article is written clearly and easy to read.
 * The article addresses one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps and is relevant to underrepresented peoples as it pertains to the role of all humans versus capitalistic practices in climate change and thus, the implication of implicating marginalized communities in contributing to global change.
 * The article does not include who initially coined the concept of “Capitalocene”. Adding this information and how it was first defined may help to further contextualize the debate around Capitalocene versus Anthropocene.
 * Although a few sources and scholars are referenced throughout the text, there are notably no citations and there is no list of sources on the associated bibliography page. As a result, the quality of the sources, accuracy, and relevance of the sources cannot be evaluated. Instead of naming an article (e.g., "Earth system impacts of the European arrival and Great Dying in the Americas after 1492"), it would be more succinct simply cite the article.
 * You could consider breaking up the General section into sub-sections of the rationale behind the Capitalocene and dissenting views, which may help to structure the text and highlight these opposing viewpoints.
 * An image(s) highlighting the capitalistic origins of climate/land use/global change would reinforce the content presented in the article. For example, a hockey stick graph showing the uptick in temperature following industrialization could be appropriate.