Wikipedia:Peer review/Silent Spring/archive1

Silent Spring
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Level-4 vital article in Art. Important book in the history of environmental regulations, history of pesticide usage, and environmentalism. Listing this under History for that reason.

Would like to see areas where the article need improvement and to be expanded.

I've noticed the article was somewhat lacking recently, so I decided to take material from the main Rachel Carson article that relates to the book over to this article as a starting point. That article has a FA rating, and is very well written.


 * Previous version for comparison

I have also attempted to improve the lede of the article.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero

 * Elaborate on Beyond Silent Spring, particularly since it doesn't have an article. It could actually get its own section.
 * "In regards to the pesticide DDT, Carson never actually called for an outright ban. Part of the argument she made in Silent Spring was that even if DDT and other insecticides had no environmental side effects, their indiscriminate overuse was counter-productive because it would created insect resistance to the pesticide(s), making the pesticides useless in eliminating the target insect populations" - While this isn't in direct violation of WP:NPOV, it comes off as an editorial argument against a pre-established position. There are citations later on that some people thought Carson was calling for an outright ban; either add them up there as well or just remove all mentions in "Contents" of Carson not calling for an outright ban. ...Does this make sense? I hope so.
 * Also, it should be "she makes in Silent Spring", not "made"; this is a general convention for describing stances.

Tezero (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The intro's fairly short given the size of the article.
 * You could also probably can the citations in the intro.
 * "Frank Edwin Egler was a contributor to the book." - Obviously, find a source. In addition, though, either merge this into the preceding paragraph (which is also far on the short side) or elaborate significantly on how he contributed.