Talk:Carbon rift

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Attribution of recent climate change#Non-consensus views|alternative explanations for climate change]] The anchor (#Non-consensus views) has been deleted.
[[Attribution of recent climate change#Non-consensus views|Non-Consensus views]] The anchor (#Non-consensus views) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eric112358, Chris hatley, Sarahlancaster, Astoken. Peer reviewers: Hoovern, Mrab94, Moss effect, Lscherl, Ggrenham, Pj2.71828, Andrewros15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

I thought that the article is coming along well with a coherent explanation of the theory although a few sections do feel a little bare bones. I went through and provided some grammatical changes and fixes, and a few wording changes to clear up some passages. Andrewros15 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

The main issue with this article is that it is not completed. I think sections on the causes and potential solutions would be good additions. The sources seem to be solid, although I would suggest finding at least a couple more so that you can make sure to have an unbiased perspective. The sentence about the rift having adverse effects on nearly every aspect of life might need to be backed up with specific examples from the literature. Potential sources: https://canadianclimateaction.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/karl-marx-and-the-metabolic-rift-theory/ Lscherl (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence talks about a relationship, but does not directly explain what "carbon rift" means. I think you should try to lead with a concise and complete definition of your article, like a thesis statement. Ggrenham (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would take another look at the first sentence of geoengineering. It sounds awkward and I am not totally sure what it is trying to say. Moss effect (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Though the article is not completed, I think potential applications of the Carbon Rift concept would be a good place to start building upon the general background you've already established. Like the user above, I think that you might need some more evidentiary support of your claims in the first paragraph. Jayatisharma (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I like the outline you have so far on Chris_hatley's sandbox page -- along what Lscherl said, all that remains is transforming that into an article. I think language could be a little more "encyclopedic," like taking out words like "basically" and changing "pumped" into "emitted," or something similar, but overall I really like the concept of the article. I'm a little confused about some of the links, like how commodity production links to the general economics article. Sources look solid so far. I appreciate they're all journal articles. It might be useful to provide more of an explanation on how metabolic rift works in a socio-political environmental context, and some examples or statistics of it in progress.

Hoovern (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review Section

While we are still in the phase of compiling the article, completion is the first thing that should be addressed. My suggestion would be to go more in depth in the "rift" and state some of the effects and citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whathehect (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

The article looks good overall, but the first paragraph of the Geoengineering section could be revamped to include clearer language. A source or sources could also probably added in the second paragraph of it to support the sentence talking about who the other researchers are that believe the necessity is inevitable. Pj2.71828 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]