User talk:Tonyfol/sandbox
Looks good. Go for it! EricGrunwald (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review from Soypark
[edit]Good Parts:
[1] Definition part is strong and compelling. You mention a variety of useful information, including concept definition, interchangeable terminology, and historical background.
[2] Categorization within "2. Types of Ecological Stability" is persuasive. It is great to divide the concept into "dynamical stability" and "structural stability." Also, it is a wonderful idea that you will provide the explanation of "Differences between dynamical and structural stability" later in your article. Please keep going!
[3] It is very useful to read related articles in "See also" section. You linked 7 relatable Wiki articles and it may help greatly for the readers to understand your topic much deeply. Especially, the web page of "keystone species" was interesting to read and helped greatly to broaden my perspective on the topic of ecological stability.
Parts to be Improved:
[1] It would be nice if a history part is newly created in your article. The definition part is quite confusingly mixed with writing about historical background, from "The concept of ecological stability emerged" to "proposed to clarify the subject is to replace ecological stability with more specific terms, such as constancy, resilience and persistence." Could you consider creating a new section, named "History" and adding some 'meats' in that section? Also, could you merge "4. History of Ecological Stability Thought" into this newly created part? Those two writings are talking about similar contents and overlap each other.
[2] Are there any sub-categorization under "2.2. Structural Stability"? How about adding sub-categories to balance with "2.1. Dynamical Stability"? More specifically, 2.1. Dynamical Stability contains three subcategories, including "Stationary, Stable, Transient, and Cyclic points," "Numerical Stability," and "Sign Stability." However, "2.2. Structural Stability" has no subcategories at all.
Soypark (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Peer review (SHK)
[edit]Three good things
The author is trying to make the original article more informative and logical. He wrote greatly detailed background on ecological stability, which is very helpful for readers to understand why we do stability analysis. Also, it is great that he added a history section so that readers can understand how the discussion on the topic has been developed. I also got impressed by a lot of reliable resources that support his article.
Two things to be improved
In the lead section, I can't find definitions or any hyperlinks of constancy and persistence, which makes me hard to understand the following discussion. So I hope they will be defined in the lead section. Also, I don't know why the last sentence in the lead section is there. I think that the noise thing has nothing to do with other paragraphs, so it would be better to be deleted.
Hoping it would be helpful to you, I suggest one more thing. Wouldn't it be better to link "stability theory"(another wikipedia article) to your stability analysis section. Since there is no detail on how to do stability analysis, the section seems weak and less informative. Ksh8579 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)