User talk:Alpeach/sandbox

Intro Paragraph - Second sentence change “would” to “is” (other minor edits as well): Green hunting is typically performed when the tranquilization of an animal is necessary for veterinary or monitoring purposes, or when an animal needs to be translocated.

-	Advocated for

-verb tense is consistent now and added missing "for" Alpeach (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

-	Unnecessary direct quote and confusing sentence structure: The hunter gets to experience the thrill of a traditional hunt, without killing the animal, paying upwards of 25 000$ USD, leaving the "the quality of the sporting experience undiminished".

Instead …

''Unlike destructive hunting, green hunting allows the hunter to experience the thrill of a traditional hunt without killing the animal and leaves the wildlife undiminished for future hunts. Though still costly (sometimes upwards of 25 000$ USD), green hunting is more economical as fees are lower than trophy hunting (up to 60 000$ USD) and the cost is sometimes used to fund the conservation project in itself and/or the management of a protected area.'' -quote removed, sentence restructured Alpeach (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

History:  Hunting rhinos using tranquilizing darts has occurred since before the 1990s - added since Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

“Endangered Wildlife Trust is another conservation organization involved early on.” - This sentence is a bit disjointed and out of nowhere... try to integrate better or elaborate on their role. -sentence removed Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

An elephant researcher with Save the Elephants hoped that eco-hunting would totally replace trophy hunting [1] -	Replace “totally” with “completely” - word replaced Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversies:

“Criticism has sprung up over the possibility that in the interest of generating revenue, particular animals may undergo tranquilization too frequently, with a case alleged where tranquilization occurred once every two weeks, and the suggestion that this may be traumatising to the animals, with consequences poorly studied.” -	Source needed for the sentence -source added from original stub article Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC) -	Restructuring. Avoid run on sentences.

''Criticism has sprung up over the possibility that in the interest of generating revenue, particular animals may undergo tranquilization too frequently. The effect and consequences of repeated tranquilization is poorly studied.'' -sentence has been restructured Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

General comments:

Great topic and good start of an article. I would suggest you read through your work out loud. I am finding some of the sentences are awkwardly phrase and I’ve suggested changes where I could. I suggest adding a sub section that introduces a large player in the green hunting business and more general facts about how much money for conservation is generated through green hunting annually and where geographically it’s most popular.

- is tranquilisation really with an "s"? I think its tranquilization -I had continued the use of "tranquilisation" consistent with the original stub article. I have changed all instances to "tranquilization" given that it is the more commonly used in the literature Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Claireosanger (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

More comments from Claire
- remove the dead link < first paragraph -will be fixed when i post it to the page Alpeach (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC) - remove italicization of first 3 sentences -italicized sentences are from the original stub article and will be removed upon posting Alpeach (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

- History section ... "The first documentation of green hunting is from a GPS collaring project to track elephants at the Timbavati Game Reserve of South Africa in 1998". - "Green hunting can provide funding without the ecological repercussions caused by trophy hunters - namely the impact on population dynamics from the loss of prominent males." - Claireosanger (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC) -yes this is a better sentence structure

Friendly Commentary
First Paragraph: There is a typo or mis-written (or awkward) sentence here: This payment may fund the project the conservation project in itself and/or the management of a protected area -fixed Alpeach (talk) Possibly hyperlink the following: "trophy hunting" and "protected area" -hyperlinked the two terms Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

History Paragraph:

Very long sentence here (possibly break up, or replace one of the "and"s with "as well as"): "However, concerns over the impacts on elephant social structures typically targeted by hunters and the negative reputation of trophy hunting in the tourism industry[4] and a reduction in provincial funding[4] led to experimentation with green hunting as an alternative funding stream" -sentence restructured Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly hyperlink: "Endangered Wildlife Trust", "Department of Nature Conservation", "Professional Hunters Association of South Africa", "South African Veterinary Council" and the "Game rangers Association of Africa" -none of these organizations have wikipedia pages Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversies Paragraph:

Minor edit (maybe stylistic?)--> change "with a case alleged where" to "with an alleged case where" -minor edit incorporated into altered sentence structure Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Break up this sentence if possible: "Criticism has sprung up over the possibility that in the interest of generating revenue, particular animals may undergo tranquilisation too frequently, with a case alleged where tranquilisation occurred once every two weeks, and the suggestion that this may be traumatising to the animals, with consequences poorly studied" -sentence restructured Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

General comments: The references are kind of dated, is there anything more recent to cite? -the subject has disappeared in the literature after 2012. I cannot find anything more recent, however I have added a sentence explaining the concept has lost legitimacy and is no longer popular Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a paragraph specifically dedicated to an explanation of environmental benefits or sustainability since its called "green hunting"? -I will restructure to make the benefits of the subject more explicit Alpeach (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Karoap (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)