User talk:Meg Theory/sandbox

First, let me begin by saying that I learned a lot by reading this, and I'm so excited to learn more and to talk with other people about the values of ecocriticism. You picked a fascinating, and politically vital, project to pursue. I can see why you are so passionate about this subject.

Now, I don't have any serious concerns, only suggestions for revision. So take what you think works and ignore the rest. Nothing that I have marked is a dire issue, and I really, I think it looks fantastic and I'm so happy to have the opportunity to learn more about ecocriticism.

For my suggestions, I will try to label them by paragraph numbers. For example, in the second paragraph, I suggest replacing the dashes with commas to create a more formal tone. Also, in the sentence that begins with "Ecocriticism is an intentionally broad approach...", would it be possible to specify an object? What is it an approach to? To texts?

For the third paragraph, might it read more smoothly if the first 'and' in the second sentence was deleted, and a comma was added between 'history' and 'and'; replace "Scholars in ecocriticism" with "ecocritics"; and end the last sentence just after "ecocritics," deleting "to be possible contributors to ecocriticism."

In the fifth paragraph there needs to be a comma after American Studies, and could I please request a short blurb that tells me why Raymond Williams article is seminal?

In the eighth paragraph there is a space missing between "the" and the link to "Western Literature Association."

And in the eleventh paragraph, I just wonder if you might consider replacing "thing" with "entity" since the argument is that nature ought not to be treated as an object.

Finally, could the "Definition" section be moved before “Evolution of Ecocriticism in Literary Studies”? My reasoning behind this is that a Wikipedia user is probably looking for a broad overview, or a snapshot of the term, in order to become familiar, so starting with something more broad would be helpful to the general audience. Then, those who want to learn more can read on for the more developed, specialized applications of ecocriticism.

I hope that this is helpful. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Best, Elanjust (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meg Theory: This is and important topic, and I am excited that you have committed yourself to improving this article. After reading the Evaluating wikipedia brochure, What stands out to me, and may be one of the easiest things that will give you confidence in tackling this subject, is the use of Headings and Subheadings to organized and divide the article more clearly. When I looked at the (SEE ALSO) pages at the bottom of your article, those pages appeared well organized. Perhaps their format serves as a start point. In the reference section, some of the articles are red, seems like an easy fix, and Buell should be updated to reflect his current edition of that central text. I hope this helps. In my next post I will provide a more detailed response to the content of the article. Usfmicah (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meg. A non-fiction text that should be added to the list is Goodbye to a River (1960) by John Graves. I've seen it referenced in other articles I've read.Usfmicah (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Meg, Keep fighting the good fight with this one! I have three areas of suggestions for your future edits. I have based these in a sense of priority that you can take with a grain of salt, though I have based them on our handful of conversations about how you see this page as a big mess with a hard-to-determine starting point.

1) Short-term/immediate fixes: Alter that dang opening/intro section. Don't over-complicate it, but what was originally there is inaccurate and misleading. We can talk about this more in person if you're having trouble with wording. I also agree with Micah that the definition section would be better placed BEFORE the history section for ease-of-use of visitors to the page.

2) Medium-term fixes: Throughout the article, you need to address/amend the claims and phrases that assert or imply the unification of the field. This, as you are aware, is a gross simplification that peppers this entire WP entry. It misleads readers and undercuts the ways that the discipline has emerged and continues to grow. Related to this, for the Evolution/history section, how much more in-depth do you think you should go? It might be helpful to offer a small-ish paragraph about literary/cultural movements that predate Ecocrit proper, yet we essential to its development (your notes/texts from Hewitt's course could supply this info most likely). And do you see need to list/describe a couple more foundational works here?

3) Long-term goal(?): I think it would benefit the page immensely if you added a new section about the major subfields of this discipline such as ecofeminism, eco-Marxism, etc. This would take substantial work and go beyond the confines of this current assignment, of course, but would be ultimately fruitful for WP readers to understand the complexities of Ecocrit and the many (sometimes conflicting) perspectives that drive it as a living area of study.

I hope this provides any semblance of a reasonable plan of attack for this project. This is something I would also like contributing to later this summer as we prepare for Exams (if you're interested in help). Nealfschr (talk)

@ Nealfschr Usfmicah Elanjust Thank you so much, all. These are excellent suggestions! I look forward to implementing them in the article revision. Meg Theory (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)