Wikipedia:Peer review/Technical geography/archive1

Technical geography

I've been working on this article for over a year now, and I believe it is well-cited, has the necessary content, and needs an outside perspective/review. This term came up in a course I was teaching a few years ago, and got me interested in the history and origin of the subdisciplines within geography (specifically, the overlap of terms like GIScience, geomatics, geoinformatics, etc.). As a graduate student, diving deep into the history of geography has been a fun exercise in my literature review skills, as the competing terms within geography are hard to untangle.

Copy-editing, suggestions on format, content suggestions, etc. are appreciated!

Thanks, GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

• "This demonstrates that the concept and term "technical geography" was in common use in the United States by the late 1800s." Needs a citation
• "The 1917 English review article is not clear on what was included in these British technical geography courses." Needs a citation
• "All the terms, however, originate from an acknowledged need for the technologies developed during this period to be a focus of independent study and from the academic culture of the quantitative revolution." Needs a citation.
• "While a small journal by comparison, all publications within it fall under, and presumably endorse the technical geography term." Needs a citation
• "Ultimately, the word choice is semantical, but the decision to use different terms for the same concept is one of many contributing factors to the term technical geography having less supporting literature than human or physical geography." Needs a citation
• "Influential geographers": each entry should have a citation.
• Lede should be multiple paragraphs, not one long paragraph.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment Thank you! This does help quite a bit! Digesting the literature has been a challenge so its good to see where I made statements that need clarification. A few questions for a possible resolution.

• Some of these I believe could be included as "notes," such as the line "The 1917 English review article is not clear on what was included in these British technical geography courses." This is because while the article talks about technical geography courses, it doesn't go into detail on what they entail. The sentence is more of a note on the source itself, as the author was ambiguous on this (it seems that they assumed the audience would know what they meant, so didn't bother defining it). To maintain clarity transparency, I found it was good to note the fact the way the author intended this word choice is unclear. I have moved this to the note section to demonstrate what I mean.
• On the "Influential geographers" section, I pulled from the example on the main Geography page. This is a great point, as it applies to many pages I'm involved in, and was following examples from what existed before I started and let that slide. How deep do the citations need to go to address this? Just for the claim following the name, or more then that? To verify the sentence following their name, I can probably just poach a source from their page, however if the source needs to demonstrate notability in addition to the statement, that will likely require several citation per individual.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Following your suggestions:

• Reworded the first one to more accurately reflect the source. The source uses the term, which shows that to some extent the term existed at the time, even if just the one author.
• Moved to a note section on the bottom and reworded a bit. This is not citable, and is intended as a note on the limit of the source itself as while the term is used, it is not defined at all. The author seems to assume the reader knows what they mean.
• Reworded, added quotes, elaborated, and added citations.
• Deleted unsourced claim.
• Added citations to most. Trimmed list if no citation added.
• Broke lead into multiple chunks of text.

I'm closing the review at this point as it has been a few weeks. Please let me know on talk page if you believe I did not adequately meet your suggestions and thank you for your time. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)