User talk:Alexcrocker12345/Conservation biology

Added the following peer review

Some good changes could be made to the article involving both the information and the references used. Several references extend to over a century old, such as some of the ones utilized for defining conservation biology. While the information may still be useful and good for a historical perspective, in makes sense to think that the idea of what the field encompasses has changed and therefore a more updated definition could be utilized as well. Several data points and their references are also linked to the 2000s, like those that discuss biodiversity, and I believe updating the information would be good to demonstrate are more truthful and correct article along with demonstrating the current conditions of the world, or at least a more current condition. The images that deal with information, such as the 2016 image discussing the ecosystem vitality objectives, could be updated to fit the more modern times as well. While this image is dated to 2016, a several year skip could mean rather drastic changes has occurred and should be reported.

Some areas of the article could use some information as well. An addition discussing some modern major events in the field could be beneficial along with expanded information of the history of the field discussing more important individuals. A very interesting part of the page involves the heading :Economic values and natural capital" and that information could be further discussed along with the societal/personal affects of the conservation biology. If available, some information could be presented about the ecological damage affects certain groups of people more than others. Madunn99 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

For the peer review: I believe the portion of the article covering parasites could actually be fleshed out more. I saw there was a main article linked; however, as a reader, I feel it would be more beneficial to have a few more points regarding the conservation biology of parasites. For example, what are some major parasites that are essential to us and are under threat? How would the extinction of these parasites affect our livelihood or different environments? I also feel like the concepts and foundations section of the article is fairly confusing, as it includes several different topics that don't necessarily flow together. For example, conservation biology as a profession could be moved last to allow information about economic values and natural capital to flow from that. I also believe that the section on ethics and values, which is currently limited, could be expanded. Iscucchi (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Added peer review
The beginning of the lead does a good job of summarizing the overall definition of the topic. The last sentence regarding conservation ethic seems very out of place since there is no context given. It is good that the link is given, but it would be very helpful to the reader to describe what it is and how it is based on conservation biology. The main section of the conservation ethic does not include as much information and background as the other main headings. Given this, the sentence in the lead gives the reader a false impression of its importance, so it would either need to be deleted or extremely edited. Also, it would be helpful for the reader if you included some specific examples of ecological monitoring, like species specific scenarios or a case in which this monitoring changed how the environment was being treated. The section of the conservation of parasites needs to be expanded. If more information is needed, you could write about the impact losing some of these parasitic species could have and there large role in the ecosystem. Overall, good history of the topic is given. Some of the references are dated or missing information and need to be updated. Reference 9: is this the appropriate method of citation? It seems very difficult for the reader to actually find this reference. CWbiology (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)