Wikipedia:Peer review/Nature/archive3

Nature
This peer review discussion has been closed. This vital article has been around for a very long time, has had two previous peer review, and has reached GA & A-class. It would be great to finally see it through to FA. I think the changes needed are mostly be stylistic, and I'll start patching these up. What I'm interested in here, is if anyone can identify any superfluous material as the article is rather long. It would also be useful if anyone can suggest ways to improve the flow of the article, as it seems a little disjointed to me. Any other comments about the article are also welcomed, of course!
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Papa November (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments by RJHall
&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, off the top of my head, the following organization suggests itself:
 * Move "Ecosystems" under the "Life" heading, since ecosystems can't exist without life.
 * Move "Beauty in nature" under the "Human interrelationship" section, as beauty is an intrinsically human viewpoint. (The section may need renaming.)
 * Group "Nature beyond Earth" with the "Earth" section, as they are two parts of a whole.
 * Finally, as an alternative to the current scheme, the first sentence of the article suggests a general organization. Why not "Natural world" and "Physical universe" as two of the primary sub-divisions? (The third being the Human aspects.) The "Physical universe" section could include Earth, the universe, matter and energy. &c.
 * The lead section doesn't function as a summary of the article. The second paragraph of the lead could almost be in a section by itself on Etymology and meaning. This could include the third paragraph as well.
 * The Earth section is okay as a discussion of the planet. But it needs to explain from the get-go what the section has to do with Nature.

General comments by BirgitteSB
The lead does not properly summarize the article. However I think the difficulty is that the article is not very coherent, but rather a bit of a hodgepodge of topics. I looked through the references and you seem to lack a good general references on Nature. Rather you have many references which are good for the specific sub-topics, but do nothing to help you tie things together or to support the idea that X is a major topic of "Nature". I think you need to find some books that are acutually written to explain "Nature" (sometimes these very general topics need to resort to books targeted toward c 12 year-olds). Use the organization of such a general reference to review the organization and flesh out the first paragraph of each section, which should be about why X is significant topic of "Nature". Then it will be much easier to use those first paragraphs to rewrite the lead into a good summary.-- Birgitte SB  18:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)