User talk:Neodig/sandbox

You asked me for comments. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you, but there have been some things I had to deal with first ,such as the arb election. And I wanted to do justice to your long & complex article, not talk off the top of my head.

The tone is still promotional Consider the first paragraph " proposes design-led, systems level change that will lead towards more place-based and sustainable lifestyles. Transition designers can be people from all walks of life, including professional designers, and apply an understanding of the interconnectedness of social, economic, political and natural systems to to intentionally address problems and to seed, catalyze and direct change at all levels of spatio-temporal scale, in ways that improve quality of life." Tjhis is purely promotional designed to say nothing much in particular but use fashionable jargon to give a generally favorable image. Companies write web pages & image advertising this way, tho I've never seen how it does any good. But in an encyclopedic context, anything that sounds like this is wrong. In the history section, since you wan tto show that the movement is widespread, it is appropriate to list the seminars and say wherethey were held. It is not appropriate to give the details. anyone who wants them will find them in the referencces or in the web.

The transition designers section seems better characterized as something like the transition design purpose. But it is wordy and full of jargon. Look at every adjective and see if it is necessary. (eg. "the transition designer will aim for both the reintegration and transformation of entire system" which says nothing specific.)  Say things once. In a lecture, one repeats things, so the audience will catch it at least once. In an encyclopedia article, it's meant to be read careffully and thisisn;t needed.

The Framework section seems to repeat the history. The image adds nothing that isnt better said in readable text. WP is not powerpoint. Statements like "have been identified as having an important role in contributing to a shift in Mindset and Posture.[54] These areas include World view,[55][56][57] Goethean (phenomenological) science [58][59][60] beauty [61] ecopsychology [62] craft [63][64] indigenous knowledge [65][66] and theories of collaboration and leadership" should better be to various fields. (and then the footnotes)

"Cosmopolitan localism" is an interesting concept, new to me. But it can be condensesd eg. ": households, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, cities and regions" adds nothing but rhetoric. Look at every use of contemporary jargon to see if its needed. "lifesytle", "sustainable" What thissection needs is not vague description, but an example.

"In the school of design at CMU, TS is taught...". --this section does not belong. We are not iterested in an encyclopedia in the particular curriculum at a particular university. --especially when almost everything there is jargon that repeats earlier material.

For the external links, see WP:EL -- they need to add something specific that extend the article. For refs, don't use more than necessary. Dont use multiple ones to prove a point, just the best. Use the REFBEGIN style, without "ibids"--it is not required, but it is expected. Try to refer only to published work---reports, phd theses, etc. We sometimes use them if there's nothing else, but you do have better. Some of the printed books listed in this section might go better as "Additional Reading"

When ready, let me know. I wouldnt have gone to this trouble if i hadn't thought there's potential for a good article.  DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello DGG, thank you for your detailed comments. I am assuming that this talk page is the appropriate place for me to respond, and also that you will get an automatic notification of my response, but I am not a very experienced Wikipedia user, so please let me know if I should have done differently. In the light of your comments I will redo the article, again. Transition Design was launched in relation to Social design and Service design. The Social design Wiki page is problematic, but the Service design seems to be okay, and so I think that it may be appropriate to use the the Service design page as a template for transition design. I realise that there may have been too much detail in the history section, but in your response your critique I was trying to demonstrate that transition design is by now quite widespread and established. I tend to disagree on your point about not using the framework image: to an extent we're getting conflicting opinions here, since I was originally in communication with other Wikipedia administrators, who specified a process that I went through to post it. By now the framework image has been quite widely used as a focal point for discussion and teaching: visualizations of all sorts, including diagrams and drawings, are used by all designers (in particular communication designers) as a way of organizing and conveying information quickly and succintly. To address your concern that 'households, neighborhoods, cities and regions' are "nothing but rhetoric", actually this represents a separate published stream of thought ('the Domains of Everyday Life') that is distinct from, but complimentary to, cosmopolitan localism. Part of the transition design approach is that everyday life has, or should have, distinctinctive characteristics and functions at each level of scale, and ecological and social problems should be addressed accordingly. Anyway, I will get back to you in a few days time when the article has been rewritten, hopefully your concerns will be addressed.  Neodig ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)