User talk:NicholasOrnstein/sandbox

The prose is on the standard of Wiki prose. As for the structure, I suggest you move the sections on "Content" and "Key Ideas" before the section on "Reception" as it would make more sense to introduce the book first before talking about its reception and significance. Another note/remark is that you probably need to argue for the significance of this new Wiki page you want to add. From what I checked, the page on "Autopoiesis" is only of Star-class quality with Low/Mid Importance. Thus, you have to argue with the fellow Wikipedians regarding the validity of such a page probably lol. Good luck! Also, stay safe and clam and carry on in these hard times. Fakeroute (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The language of your article so far is clear and follows wiki standards. As for your structure, I am wondering if you will need both a "reception" and "influence" section. It may be possible to combine those sections into a more general subheading. I also agree with my peer that the "content" and "key ideas" sections should be the first one after the lead. I really like your idea to include a content section, I think it provides valuable insight into the text. Megan Reyna (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review from David Lorell (Thank you, for reminding me I needed to do these!!!)

" It was first published in 1972 in Chile, with a second edition published in 1980 in by the D. Reidel Publishing Company, and a third edition published in 1991 by Springer." Maybe a source documenting these facts? Like links to the publisher or something? Maybe those citations at the end of the paragraph are exactly this, but maybe it would be useful to have the citations earlier?

Maybe you could add just a few words somewhere early on about what systems theory is. You link to the page, but it might be nice not to have to leave this one just to get a vague idea.

"an effort by scientists to bring their science to bear" This phrasing is a bit awkward, I think. I'm having a bit of trouble parsing it. Do you mean something like, "an effort by [name of field] scientists to synthesize their domain-knowledge with..."? Also you should probably have a citation of somebody else making this claim.

" reviewers also point out inconsistencies in the formal argument that Maturana and Varela are attempting to make. Reviewer M.G. writes in The Review of Metaphysics (v. 35, 1981)," It would probably be more wiki-like to summarize their critique in a digestible way, rather than quote them.

Nice work! This is super interesting. I am far removed from this field but from my place of distance this topic seems very cool. Systems theory in general (I know nothing about it except a brief glance at the lead for its wiki page) has fun vibes of Cabalah and Neo Platonic mysticism where everything is one and everything is connected, but couched in terms and concepts of modern science. Very nice.

Anyway. Nice job, cool topic. Feel free to ignore all my comments if you disagree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasOrnstein (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)