User talk:Dynomite216

Welcome!
Hello, Dynomite216, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Disturbance (ecology) Evaluation
This article tilted Disturbance (ecology) has good structure, leading with the necessary information to understand what disturbance is, how it comes about and the impacts of disturbance on the ecosystem. There are several subheadings, such as Criteria, Cyclic Disturbance, Compound Disturbance, Species Adapt to Disturbance, and Importance. The Criteria section is a bit vague and only uses one source from a paper which is highly focused on climate change. In the following section Cyclic Disturbance, it provides a clear definition of what a cyclic disturbance is in a broad sense. In this section the article uses several credible sources. Although this section only gives one specific case study about an outbreak of beetles in a pine forest, and the regrowth of the pines; excluding any mention of the rest of the flora and fauna. This seems to be a common theme for the entire article. As the article continues there seems to be a lack of sourced information. In the next sub heading Compound Disturbances, it gives only one very vague example. And the entire section is only two sentences long, lacking quite a bit of content. In the succeeding section titled Species Adapt to Disturbance, you can tell this was written by a different person and unlike the previous sections it provides slightly more cited information from three different sources but, some aspects such as patch exploitation could be more in depth. Although they provide an example of species adapting to disturbance they use the example of trees again in this case a pin cherry, silver maple and sycamore trees, but still fail to provide an example about the rest of the ecosystem. Lastly, this article provides an Importance section which I think is a good way to close this type of article; with the big picture. But, yet again giving an example of fire disturbance on ponderosa pine and douglas fir trees, leaving out the mention of the understory plants. This article, on disturbance (ecology) is a good start but has a lot of work to do. First the text is very choppy and has a language and flow issue, it is easy to tell that this wiki page has been pieced together by several different authors. There is also a lack of content and citing in several of the sections. Specifically, the Criteria and Compound Disturbance sections, which are two sentences each with only one source. There is definitely an opportunity to expand in both sections, by providing examples other than those about trees and fire disturbance. To end on a good note this article is well structured with several subheadings and the coverage was neutral in the way that content was not opinion based and provided a both negative and positive outlook on disturbance and its impact on the environment. Dynomite216 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC) HH