Wikipedia:Peer review/Sustainability/archive2

Sustainability

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because we are preparing to list it as a featured article candidate. The regular editors of the article are too close to it and need a fresh pair of eyes to see what we do not see. We have likely nailed down many of the formatting issues, but are nevertheless looking for both "big picture" advice (especially concerning neutrality, readability, reliability of sources and such) as well as small details (links, etc.) that may trip us up. While the article has been stable recently, there have been repeated claims by one editor that the article is overly-reliant on UN sources. Our view is that much of the comparative data pertaining to sustainability comes from UN agencies or UN-sponsored studies, such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. That said, we have tried to use a broad range of sources from a variety of perspectives and methodologies.

Thanks, Sunray (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Sunray's talk page, I would make sure that all of the points from the previous peer review have been addressed. My comments are mostly WP:MOS pointsthat seem to need to be addressed - I am not an expert on the topic and the UN refs seem to be reliable to me. ✅
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - the best FA model I can find is Renewable energy in Scotland - while not a perfect match, it faces many of the same issues (trying to cover a broad topic which can be controversial)
 * The lead image caption does not really tie the image explicitly to the article, perhaps something like Sustainability can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, as seen in NASA's Blue Marble composite images from 2001 (left) and 2002 (right).✅
 * Images also need alternate text for the visually impaired before going to WP:FAC - see WP:ALT ✅
 * Captions that are not full sentences generally do not end with a period / full stop ✅
 * Image captions in general need to do a better job of explaining the image and its relation the text. For example, there are seven labels on File:Sustainable development.svg, but the caption just says "The three pillars of sustainability.[3]'' I think many people skimming an article still read the captions, so these need to do a better job of describing the image and its connection to the topic. ✅
 * Per WP:MOS, most images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. ✅
 * Does the lead follow WP:LEAD? The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure the current lead does this. ✅
 * Quotations need to follow MOS:QUOTE - unless a whole sentence is being quoted, punctuation goes outside the quotation marks, so fix things like Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination."[7] to ...a "journey" or "destination".[7]✅
 * Per WP:ITALIC the use of italics to apparently imply quotation in "This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition.[11]" is incorrect - if it is a quote, use quotation marks.✅
 * Linking statements such as "The next section traces the evolution of thinking about sustainability in human history." are not generally given in Wikipedia FAs.✅
 * Avoid all capital letters in things like GLOBAL BIOPHYSICAL CYCLES CRITICAL FOR LIFE✅
 * Spell out abbreviations on first use and give the abbreviation after in parentheses. So fix sentences like concept of living within environmental constraints underpins the IUCN, UNEP and WWF definition of sustainability:...✅
 * This needs a ref: Societies outgrowing their local food supply or depleting critical resources either moved on or faced collapse. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. ✅
 * Refs need to be consistent and to present a minimum of information for each ref. Books generally need page numbers, but the Guns, Germs, and Steel ref and some other book refs do not.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. Things like current ref 92 with a bare link "UNEP Grid Arendal. [1] A selection of global-scale reports. Retrieved on: 2009-3-12" need to be fixed. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * While a huge amount of work has bgone into this, it is not anywhere near ready for WP:FAC from a MOS point of view. Most articles have the hardest time meeting WP:WIAFA criteria 1a (well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard). I think parts of this could be made more concise. The Definition section is one example. Making this more concise will not make it read better, it will also make it less huge and thus more inviting to the average reader.