Talk:Ecology/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I shall take up the challenge of reviewing this interesting and important behemoth article. Will take it one section at a time... hope you aren't in a rush! (p.s. observers-additional comments and opinions are very welcome! Sasata (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Levels of organization and study

• "Ecology is challenged by a constant analytical problem of how to deal with different scales of pattern in space and time." I understand what meaning the sentence is trying to convey after reading the section, but "different scales of pattern in space and time" doesn't parse well - what's a scale of pattern? Perhaps "Ecology" should be "The study of ecology". Can the word "constant" be removed?

There are different levels of organization where emergent phenomenon are realized - this is what is meant by scale of pattern. It is a difficult metaphor to convey. I have seen this terminology used in the literature. For example, in evolution it is understood that genetic drift is the causal explanation for patterns of change that operate at the molecular level. Concurrently, natural selection is operating at the level of the organism and group selection is operating at higher levels of organization. There are different causal explanations required for the patterns that are exhibited at the different scales. Why do we see colonial organisms for example? One of the main thrusts for major evolutionary transitions stems from group organization - where altruism and cooperation becomes selectively advantageous within the group over other groups. In such cases the higher levels of organization can dominate lower level selection. This is an example of emergence - the pattern at the group level cannot be explained through principals of natural selection operating for individuals.(see: [1] or for accessible copy edit pdf version: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CDPS.pdf) There are also temporal patterns - such as punctuated equilibrium where mathematical power laws explain the pattern of species radiation, extinction and replacement over time. Constant can be removed. The study of ecology is a tautology since the root word ology means the study of. I'll see what I can do - the root of the word in the lead actually needs to be fixed. Ecology stems from: Oikos: household or housekeeping, living relations; Χώρα - dwelling place, distributional area.[2]Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For an ecological discussion on scale and pattern, I recommend the following paper: The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur Award Lecture[3]. I'm trying to think of a way to re-word this to make it easier to understand.Thompsma (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I revised this part to make it clear and simple what scales of pattern in space and time means. The paragraph structure might be a bit odd - but in some ways it works.'Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Long-term ecological studies provide important ecological track records in this regard." repetition of ecological

Done. Or modified.'Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• futher->further

Done..'Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The Long Term Ecological Network [2] manages and exchanges scientific information among such research sites." Okay, but aren't there there 100's or 1000s of similar organizations across the world? Why single them out specifically?

The LTER is important, but you are correct - I will change this to the International Long Term Ecological Network [4].Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I set the internal wiki link to Long Term Ecological Research and the external link to the international network. There is no wiki page on the international network yet.'Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The longest experiment in existence is the Park Grass Experiment that started in 1856." This assertion will definitely need a citation. Also, is it really an "experiment" (scientific enquiry testing a hypothesis), or a long-term observation?

It is an experiment and it is already cited - just in the wrong place in the following sentence. I'll fix this.Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Ecology is also complicated by the fact…" again "The study of ecology…" or something similar

Nope - already means the study of.Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• bare urls should be converted into a proper template

I have tried to understand how to do this. Can you give me a link and explanation?Thompsma (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go to this tool, set the pulldown menu to "URL", click on the options you want (in this case, add ref tag, url, and accessdate) and it makes a nicely formatted citation for you. You'll want to double check and will probably have to set the publisher, work and author fields yourself.

Done.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• to me, the prose seems to be a bit too florid in some places…. e.g. "…their genetic differences that are evolutionarily classified into hierarchical, branching and coalescing dimensions." I'm having difficulty imagining how genetic differences are classified into coalescing dimensions.

This might have to do with the prevailing societal view and historical way of teaching that life is a branching process. Lynn Margulis and others demonstrated clearly that coalescence is as important as the branching process. Indeed all of the major evolutionary transitions in life involved a coalesence via emergent or higher levels of selection. Think about the first eukaryotic cell - it was formed out of the symbiosis between a prokaryote and a primitive anucleated eukaryotic cell. Moreover, recent analysis into coalescence theory points out the important distinction between a gene tree and a species tree, the former coalesces within the later. Many contemporary authors have stressed the importance of breaking out of this pattern. Hence, the wording wasn't chosen to be florid - it was strategic and scientific.Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct - it is a different concept, but it is out there in the literature. I linked the coalescing word to Horizontal gene transfer (or could use Symbiogenesis) so that it might make sense.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been re-written for the better - no mention of coalescence. It might be worth while to introduce the concept of reticulate evolution in context of host-parasite systems, bacterial ecology or reticulating food webs (e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],[10]). I give a list of references for this - because the concept of coalescent or reticulating rather than bifurcation in ecological and evolutionary studies has been highlighted in the recent literature. This is what I had in the back of my mind when I first included this.'Thompsma (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecological niche

• not sure how the Allee et al quote helps the reader's understanding of the Ecological niche section, or even the article as a whole

It is such a great quote!!! It could be removed, but it seemed like an important quote in a historical context and for its prose of concept. It adds to the context.Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the quote. :('Thompsma (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "…George Evelyn Hutchinson made conceptual advances on the concept…" awkward

Done.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "…introduced the most widely accepted definition:" need a source for a sweeping generalization like this, or reword

It is cited directly where I took the quote from. I'll fix the awkward part.Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• wlink or define biotic and abiotic

Done.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The terms fundamental and realized niche are introduced and defined, but then not used again in the article. Can they be removed without impeding reader understanding?

They could be removed, but this is an introduction to the concept of niche so I don't see why it should be removed. It might be better worded to give a better picture of how these relate toward a better understanding of nicheThompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• wlink trait, habitat, montane, alpine

Done.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• formatting into blockquotes not required for short quotes (less than 4 lines)

Good to know!Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The ecological engineering concept has stimulated a new appreciation for the degree of modification and the influence organisms have on the ecosystem and evolutionary process." Can we remove "the degree of modification and" without losing meaning?

Revised - in addition to the other small edits caught! Thanks!!!Thompsma (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "under appreciated" -> should be one word

Done.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Might it be better to remove that last quote from the subsection, and put the ant/termite example into your own words? The last half of the quote isn't really an example of the statement preceding it (i.e., ants moving their brood around the nest is not an example of a species influencing their environment)

The environment within the structure of the nest is being regulated and influenced; see the original source.[11] It could be put into my own words. Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I expanded the quote to include the preceding sentence. The important part was that the nest itself was the subject of selection as part of the feedback mechanism. I could re-write and might still do this when I have a bit more time.'Thompsma (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I took the quote out and wrote it in my own words.Thompsma (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Population ecology

• "The first journal publication of the Society of Population Ecology was released in 1952." Is this information necessary for a general overview article? Because it's redlinked, the reader has no idea of the significance of this journal, and it seems to me to be extraneous.

Removed and fixed.Thompsma (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Population ecology is concerned with the study of groups of organisms that live together in time and space." Seems the phrase "is concerned with" is redundant, and "together in time and space" reminds me of Star Trek. What do you think of something instead like "Population ecology is the study of populations and how they change over time."

Your revision might not sound like Star Trek, but it misses the point. Spatiotemporal, space & time, geography & chronology are terms that all appear regularly in ecological literature. I doubt any of the reviewers reject the literature for sounding too Star Trek, which appropriated its lingo from science in the first place. It is actually the other way around, Star Trek sounds too ecological. It is important to capture both elements. You cannot understand one without an appreciation for the other. Moreover, the word concerned was inserted for a reason and it isn't redundant. Your new sentence gives a very limited scope on what population ecology is about. Population ecology is concerned with these things, but the subject covers a whole lot more.Thompsma (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example from a semi-random article: "This paper examines the results of the pre-sampling program and attempts to determine how to distribute samples through space, and through time, in order to best sample the variability of the system. Through space, four methods are proposed...."[12] - If you read more of the article is sounds even more like Star Trek than what I wrote. This is pretty much the norm for ecological lingo.Thompsma (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I reworded a few sentences here. You might be interested to read the paper I newly cited [13], it has lots more of the space time star trek lingo.Thompsma (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm worried there's too much detail in this section for an introductory-level article on the topic. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the logistic equation. N is the biomass density. K is the carrying capacity. But I still don't really know what these terms mean, or the units that would be used to measure them. I understand that statistical models and mathematical equations are an essential part of ecology, but does the average encyclopedia reader have to be bombarded with these advanced concepts to get a basic overview of the science?

Is this an introductory level article? Evolution for example has an introduction to evolution article. If you go through some of the physics articles or other science pages, people have not shied away from using formulas. I used the most introductory principals I could put together, but I will take a second look at this to see if I can simplify it even more. N is the biomass density - this refers to the dry weight, raw number or some other N = Numerical measure of every species within a given area.Thompsma (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I went through this section and tried my best to simplify it. Hopefully it now gives just enough detail.'Thompsma (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• wlink life history, matrix algebra, fecundity
• "principal" is used twice in this section (also in the quote), but I think "principle" is meant
• "Evolution favors productivity in r-selected species." what is meant by "productivity" in this context?

fecundityThompsma (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if this whole paragraph on r/K selection could be swapped out for a sentence or two (like the lead sentence of the r/K article)

Perhaps...but this could be done for every topic. I'm not trying to be sarcastic in making these statements - it is really a difficult balance and choice to make on what to include. r/K selection is just one concept of many - this section could be expanded ten fold beyond its current state. What is presented is a mere introduction to something that entire textooks are devoted too. Take Odum's "Fundamentals of Ecology"[14] for example, the subject headings are far more expansive than what is given in this article. I realize that this isn't meant to be an exhaustive text, but even the fundamentals are significantly larger than presented here. I tried hard to be judicious in my selection of topics. I will try to cut things down - but I disagree that this main article is too long.Thompsma (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, and WP:Make technical articles accessible and get back to you on this one.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I read through these wiki articles and it gave me a bit of a clearer perspective on this. Ecology can become highly technical - so including a bit of technical information is appropriate. The WP:Make technical articles accessible suggests writing out formulas in plain English, which I did. I think that the few formula's that I include in this article are appropriate, because they have both historical and scientific significance. They are the basis from which many other ideas in ecology have developed. The r/K selection concept was introduced by Robert MacArthur and Edward O. Wilson in their landmark book The Theory of Island Biogeography. This concept has been a well source of ecological activity. I will do my best to go through this and make it as least technical as possible.'Thompsma (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

'I have gone through the r/K-selection section and simplified the description. Perhaps Earthdirt will be kind enough to go over and trim it down - he is much better than I am at picking out the essential elements and putting it in simple terms.'Thompsma (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• is the definitions table really necessary? Some of the terms are introduced without being used again in the article, and the entire table is replicated in the subarticle on population ecology.

The definitions are not necessarily provided for the article itself, but in reading the definitions the reader is able to more fully comprehend the levels of organization. Once again - ecology can go much further and this article really skims the surface. A person reading an ecological text or article would need to understand what these terms mean and the table gives a perfect introduction to them. I could take each term and write a section describing them - deme for example has a lot of depth of meaning in relation to metapopulation ecology. Once again - I disagree that the length of this article is a problem. It seems like a lot of this feedback is geared toward trimming the article down in size when the size is already appropriate. It might be more helpful to focus on the content when you consider the weight of all the other ecological subject headings that are missed. Did we cover the basics? This table gives a basic "Coles Notes" introduction to the terminology that is regularly encountered in ecological literature. If I were looking at an encyclopedia I would want to find the basic information that would help me to understand what I needed to know to move into the broader discipline.Thompsma (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The short of it - definitions are helpful as a reference. Encyclopedia's are a reference source - it seems encyclopedic to see a list of relevant definitions. Deme - an evolutionary unit or group of interbreeding individuals - for example - is a little antiquated, but it is still used. There are many variations on the theme of population, so this list of definitions might help. One citation counts 18 different variations on the concept of population!!![15]'

• make sure cites come after punctuation; should check through the whole article for consistency

I have found a few examples and corrected them. I know to do this - so most are probably correct, I imagine few are incorrect. I'll keep my eye out.

• The paragraph on metapopulation ecology left me unfulfilled. I see from the metapopulation article that the separated populations are of the same species, not mentioned in this article. Terms are introduced (sink and source patches, rescue effect), but not used again. If the rescue effect is an important concept, why isn't there an article on it?

If you read the table (mentioned above) you will see how population is defined: "A group of conspecific individuals that is demographically, genetically, or spatially disjunct from other groups of individuals." There is this back and forth between terms being introduced and not used again, yet the suggestion that the article needs to be cut down in size and expanded in other sub-articles. There is a balance that has to be achieved. I disagree that a term needs to be used more than once in order for it to appear here. The rescue effect is one of the fundamentals of metapopulation ecology and you will notice it mentioned in metapopulation.Thompsma (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I will work on this section more. I really like the metapopulation concept and it is actually something I'm working on for my research. I've been studying amphibian metapopluation ecology beside UNBC for the past four years - some of the metapopulation concepts are difficult to comprehend.'Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry if it seems like I'm trying to chop stuff out, but the article is rather long, and part of the GA criteria is 3(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)... just trying to help prepare for FAC, where the article length may be an issue. Sasata (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I re-worked it and gave it a sub-heading along with r/K-Selection. I went through the more difficult parts and tried my best to simplify the text.'Thompsma (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem Sasata - you're doing a great job. Your comments are helping. There was talk on the length of the article in the talk pages and several of us worked to bring it down in size. I compared this article to others of a similar kind that had FA status and ecology is not excessive in comparison. The size of this article is actually smaller than others - such as Lion. It is important to remember that this is ecology that we are dealing with, which is quite possibly one of the most complex disciplines out there. Naturally this article is going to have a tendency to be a bit longer to capture the essence of the subject matter.Thompsma (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Community ecology

• I'm left slightly confused by the opening sentence. Here's the first thing that threw me off: "Ecosystems are generally studied at the local or effective community scale": is it saying either the local community scale or the effective community scale, or should I read this as the term "local community scale" is synonymous with "effective community scale". What is an effective community scale, anyway? Next: "… in relation to decomposition and consumption rates …" consumption of what? total energy consumption of the population? Next: "The majority of research into community ecology examines population dynamics of pairs of species to understand how entire communities function." By pairs of species does this mean like for example the predator-prey dynamics? What do you think of this sentence lifted from the subarticle on Community ecology: "Community ecology is a subdiscipline of ecology which studies the distribution, abundance, demography, and interactions between coexisting populations." IMO, that work work well as an introductory sentence for this section, as it clearly defines the topic, and lays a groundwork for what is to follow. The way it reads now, I have to pause and think when these a new terms or concepts are introduced, and it makes it somewhat more laborious to read. I see the boxquote is helpful in this regard, but I only got to the boxquote after my initial confusion.

Good call. This section needed and may still need a bit of work. I took your recomendation and went over this a bit. It should read a bit better.Thompsma (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• "that illustrate real ecological pathways, usually starting with solar energy being photosynthesized in plants." Needs rephrasing, as it currently could be interpreted as plants photosynthesize solar energy (i.e. they synthesize solar energy, instead of the intended meaning, they utilize solar energy to photosynthesize)

Done.Thompsma (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• does the definition of food-chain length need to be quoted?

No. I'll fix this. I pasted in important quotes in as I came across the information, but at the time of writing I couldn't think of a better sentence or just left it unfinished.Thompsma (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.Thompsma (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Trophic dynamics

• "Links in food-webs relate of primary importance to feeding relations or trophism (The Greek root of the word troph, τροφή, trophē, means food or feeding)." I do not understand this sentence ("relate of primary importance"?) Surely there must be a better solution to explaining etymology than adding a whole sentence in parentheses?

'I re-wrote this.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• "…and don't fit neatly…" do not use contractions in formal writing

'Fixed.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• wlink primary producers, dry weight

'I wlkink'd for primary producers in re-write, but I don't know about dry weight. Is it really necessary to have a wiki page describing what it means to take the weight of something that is dry? I linked into Biomass (ecology) instead.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Functional groups are usually depicted in hierarchical schemes with three or more trophic levels including primary producers (autotrophs) and levels of heterotrophic consumers including the herbivores (primary consumers), predators (secondary consumers), predators that eat predators (tertiary consumers), and ultimately cycling through to the detrivores in the soil ecosystems." This sentence is massive, and needs a grammar shakedown.

'This was poorly written! I did a re-write, hopefully for the better. Thanks.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• "… but they are closely rivaled by microbes (prokaryotes - decomposers)."do we need to know that they're prokaryotes to understand the sentence? Seems like just another jargony word that might confuse some for no good reason

'Removed.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Trophic levels and food webs can be used to statistically model or mathematically calculate parameters such as those used in other kinds of network analysis, including graph theory." Wow. Very cool information, but I pity the average Wikipedia reader that has to understand this…if I didn't already know what systems analysis was, I'm not sure this would make sense without a long think. Does the average reader have to know this information to comprehend the section?

'Good point. However, I think it might just need a bit of a re-write. Trophic levels and food webs are more than graphical ways of conveying information about ecology. I think it is important to say that scientists can actually use this information to study and compare ecosystems in a mathematical / statistical way.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• the "groups" in this section are often described as "functional", but I'm not sure what that adjective adds to my understanding. How different would the meaning be if it was left out?

'There are different ways of grouping things together, such as phylogenetic groups versus functional groups. The literature on trophism regularly refers to functional groups. I see that I used functioning, functional, and function a lot in this section. I think it just needs to be edited. 'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• third paragraph is difficult for my brain. There's a spelling error (their->there), but jargon makes it difficult to follow the line of thought clearly.

'Agreed - I will fix.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't like how the one figure caption sneaks in a reference to paleoecology, without any accompanying explanation of what this is in the article section. Images and captions are meant to enhance reader understand of what's in the article, not to fit extra information in.

'I might cut this out. It isn't the greatest image, but I thought it was a cool concept to show that food webs and trophic levels could be reconstructed from the fossil record. The image actually summarizes much of what is discussed in the section - i.e., trophic levels and functional groups - the only difference is that is it paleoecology. You will notice in the figure that the left panels are very busy, but on the right they are simplified. This illustrates what grouping functional groups together does. I'll think about this in my revision - perhaps a sentence about paleoecology is needed and this image could be put into the main paleoecology article instead.'Thompsma (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

'Removed the image, but I still put a link into paleoecology by referencing the origin of soils. I think a link to this needs to exist somewhere throughout the article.'Thompsma (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• In general, the material in this section is pretty dense reading. Might be worthwhile to examine the prose again, but imagine you're writing for a bright grade 12 student with no university education.

'I went through this section again. I ended up expanding it a bit in the hopes of making it easier to understand. It might need a bit more editorial work, but I think I addressed some of your main concerns.'Thompsma (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(cont.) Sasata (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• going back a section (Food webs), something should be done about the first diagram. There's no way anyone without a microscope will be able to read it. It isn't particularly attractive; something with only text and boxes like this could be whipped up in a matter of minutes with a decent drawing program. There's problems in the left-side diagram (typos: "debpth", "H2O"; inconsistent capitalization; poor grammar; pixelated lines, etc.) I don't quite get the right side diagram (what's "R"? "P"? "Exports"?) Thinking ahead to FAC, it might be better to just have one well thought-out, quality image in this section. (p.s. I'll go through all of the images again more closely on the second pass through, just thought I'd mention this now so you have some time to think about an alternative.)

'I fully agree, but I've been searching and it is super difficult to find a diagram that is already scanned in on the public domain that illustrates a food web. I quickly drafted one together and have been thinking of going over and improving it. I did the trophic pyramid image to replace the ugly picture that was there before. I had a copy of Corel Photopaint, but my disc broke. Just downloaded Artweaver - which is freeware and learning how to use it. This might be a good time for me to put together a good food web illustration. I also hate the simplified food web - it looks terrible. The silver spring food web that you are questioning about "R" "P" "Exports" is actually one of the earliest published food web illustrations by Elton. It is listed on the commons as someone's own work, but it isn't. It is a scan from a book or journal publication - I've seen it before. If anyone has another food web-illustration or nice images - please contribute. I can put a much better image together for amphibians - because this is my area of expertise.Thompsma (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

'I drafted a new food-web illustration using dreamweaver and posted it. What do you think? Does this image work?'Thompsma (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• "A keystone species is a species that occupies a particularly strong or central node in the food-web." Unclear about what node strength means.

Network theory - Node (networking). I'll try to clarify.

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Different ecosystems express different complexities and so it is unclear how applicable and general the keystone species model can be applied." Wordy… needs trimming. "express different complexities" There must be a simpler way to say this. The last half of the sentence looks like it could be reduced to something like: "…it is unclear to what extent the keystone species model may be applied to all ecosystems." or something like that.

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• physiognomy? deserves a link, don'tcha think? How about all those biome types?

'Removed physiognomy and linked biome types. Done.'

• Mark, the prose seriously needs a shakedown. Too much information, written at a level that's far above the average Wikipedia audience. It's not just me, I asked my wife to read some sections (she's a physician, and has a science background), and she found reading it just as laborious as I did. Take the first sentence of the "Biome and biosphere" section: "Ecological units of organization are defined through reference to any magnitude of space and time on the planet." The first sentence of any new section should introduce the material in a friendly way, and compel the reader to read more. Rather than flowing nicely into the next sentence, here I have to stop for 5 seconds to convince myself I understand what I just read. I think the article should be whacked with a easy stick until many of the big words fall out ("example of holism applied in ecological theory" (what's holism? ok I see it's discussed later, but here it's "Huh?"); "ecological biogeochemistry"; "physiognomy", etc.) Could you go through the rest of the article with a view to simplifying the text, and removing unnecessary words? Some examples from the 1st paragraph of the next section:

• "Ecology and evolution are academic branches of the life sciences."

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Natural selection, life history, development, adaptation, populations, and inheritance all play an prominent roles in ecological…"

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Ecology and evolution are scientifically connected"

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "There is no sharp dichotomous boundary that separates ecology from evolution'

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

'Working at it. You are correct, but it take's time, revisions, and thought. I've been reading these papers and nothing else but for the past 25 years, so the terminology seems natural to me. I have to go over things several times to think it through before I can put it in simpler terms such that the original meaning remains in place. I think I am accomplishing this in sections where you have raised some of your concerns. I am finding it helpful when you go over sections first to highlight the places where it is difficult and/or confusing.'Thompsma (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(cont) Ecology and evolution

• "Ecology and evolution are considered sister disciplines. Ecology and evolution are branches of the life sciences." might as well combine these two short sentences into one, will avoid repetition of E & E

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "behavioural - British spelling (this spelling is inconsistent throughout article)

Do you know which one is typically used on wikipedia?''Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Morphological, behavioural and/or genetic traits, for example, can be mapped onto evolutionary trees to study the historical development of species and it also organizes the information in relation to the ecology of adaptations." link evolutionary tree; what is "it" referring to?

'Altered wording to something a little simpler.'

• "All organisms are motile to some extent." how is a tree motile?

'I remember wondering this myself - until I watched the motile sperm of plants dancing under a microscope in first year biology - a fascinating things to see. Leaves also move about to trace the suns rays. I have talked to behavioural biologists who investigate the behaviour of plants. Plants are considered to have behaviours and although they are not as motile as other species - they do exhibit allelopathy - often cited as a behavioral trait in plants. When I first wrote this - I was trying to think of ways of describing plant behaviour. The abstract in this paper[16] reveals much about plant behaviour in this respect. I'll think about this a bit more.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Behavioural ecology is the study of ethology, its ecological and evolutionary implications."

Perhaps remove comma and and insert "and"

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• link zooplankton, fitness (biology)

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Adaptation is the central unifying concept in behavioral ecology.[2]" convert link to cite web template

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the second quote… I don't know what optimal flight initiation distance is, nor am I sure what kind of animal is being referred to. Plus the two quotes in a row without intervening explanatory text is somewhat awkward… can it be removed without harm? In fact, reading on to the salamander example, I think this more than adequately describes what is meant by "adaptive principals of conservation or efficiency", so maybe the first quote could go too?

'Removed. Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• simplfied, predominantely - sp

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "A genome is the host for associate genes in the same way that parasites are associates on host organisms." Is it really? I can think of arguments for and against this comparison. At any rate, I'm not sure if it's a good example for this ecology article.

'Simplified - Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• link parasitism

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Image caption:"Leafhoppers are protected by an army of ants in a symbiotic relationship." This looks like a cool picture, but I don't understand why the ants are protecting the leafhoppers. A trip to the leafhopper article didn't help either. Also, what defines an "army" of ants?

'Who knows. I had just grabbed the image plus quote from another wiki page. Fixed.'Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• The grid interaction diagram is weak… no explanation in the article of why it's useful, and there are terms used in there that aren't used elsewhere (amensalism, neutralism)

'I must have been super tired when I wrote this section. Reading over it made me confused!! I have gone through it and fixed parts up using your suggestions. Hopefully it is becoming more clear. I'm working hard to simplify the concepts and terms. I removed the grid image and replaced it with a cool spider being paracitized by mites.'Thompsma (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "…fungus-growing ants with agricultural like societies," "agricultural like" is awkward

'Reworded - done.'Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "this brood behaviour is a an ecological insurance" fix

'Done.'Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• is the Lack quote necessary? Seems to me like his hypothesis is already adequately explained in your own words, and the quote is just filler.

'Removed.'Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The birds of paradise, for example, display elaborate ornaments…" what is an elaborate ornament? Fancy, jewel-encrusted baubles? Maybe display (zoology) should be linked.

'Added link - elaborate ornaments is common ecological vernacular. For example:[17].'Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Great work Sasata! When this is completed I will go back over each section to reduce this page down to 10,000 words or less. I agree that it is getting a bit long, but for me it helps to first lay it all out and then to trim sections out. I will paste some of this information into the sub-articles. I just reduced the size of the food-web image I created to the right. I pieced it together using the techniques that were introduced by Odum & Odum[18]. I have all the pieces of the image in layers if you think that any changes need to be done to it - let me know.Thompsma (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(cont.) Biogeography

• "As the name implies, biogeography is an amalgamation of…"

'Done' Ettrig (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Journal of Biogeography was established in 1974 and publishes "...papers dealing with all aspects of spatial, ecological and historical biogeography."[3]" Extraneous. any keener who wants this information can find it in link "Ecology Journals" given in the External links.

'Done' Ettrig (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I think the statement "Biogeography and ecology share much of the same disciplinary roots" is misleading. It is also obscure. Biogeography existed long before ecology. When ecology arrives it gives meaning (so to speak) to biogeography. At the same time biogeography becomes a sub-discipline of ecology. Ettrig (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• I really think the introductory paragraph of a new section should clearly define what the section is about. Check out the introductory sentence of the Biogeography daughter article: "Biogeography is the study of the distribution of biodiversity over space and time." Ah ok… now I get it. Why can't this be be first sentence here too?

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• "…that influence range distributions and dispersal (or dispersion)" why is that parenthetical information in there? Is there some fine difference between dispersal and dispersion? Aren't range and distribution synonymous? (wiki def'n of ecology: "In biology, the range or distribution of a species is the geographical area within which that species can be found")

'Range, distribution, migration, dispersal and dispersion each have their own definitions and interpreted meaning. Range is defined as you describe above, but the distribution may not necessarily overlap. The distribution is where the individuals are, whereas the range describes the places where individuals may roam in their historical and contemporary setting. Dispersal is the movement of individuals from one place of residence to another, which differs from migration, the movement of individuals within their home range; although the terms sometimes are used interchangeably. "Population dispersion is a measure of the spatial aggregation of populations and how this can affect the delivery of services over a given area (p. 334, [19]." All this said - the sentence could probably be simplified and I'll look into it.'Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The current formulation implies that dispersion is the same as dispersal. But the explanation above says they are different. Dispersion says that dispersal is dispersion. --Ettrig (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Reworded and fixed. Made no mention of dispersion.'Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The phylogeography diagram is a classic example of too much information, and image too complex to be of any use at the size it's being shown. I think the information presented there is worthy of a whole section, but here it's crammed into a figure caption! Recommend to check out the wikipages on WP:MOS#images and captions for guidelines.

'I posted a question about this above - realizing, of course, that their is too much information crammed in here. However, I wanted to hear some opinions on the figure itself. It is a complex figure, but it is representative of a lot of figures in phylogeographic research. Hence, it illustrates quite well what it is that phylogeographers are after. I really don't have an answer here, but I like the figure - it is informative, but is it too much for this article? How could it be simplified? Should it be simplified, removed, or transferred to the phylogeography page?'Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Molecular ecology

• "There has long been an understanding of relationship between ecology and genetic inheritance." How long? Since the Ancient Greeks? Since the source was written in 1949? "an understanding of relationship between" is awkward

'The Greeks didn't have genetics. The point was that there was an understanding of genetics in ecology prior to the advancement of many of the technologies in use today that allow us to study the genetic patterns directly. I'll fix this - you are correct, the wording is poorly selected.'Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• "This research became more feasible with the development of genetic technologies" What research? The last sentence wasn't talking about any research.
• I did not know that PCR technology generated the journal Molecular Ecology in 1992. I thought it was mostly used to amplify DNA sequences :)
• "In 1994, professor John Avise played a leading role with the publication of his book ..." played a leading role in what?

Modified and done.Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Sasata - I will get to these edits soon. The description box I have for the molecular ecology image is probably too long. It seemed necessary to explain the figure, but it looks odd due to its length. Do you have any suggestions for this? I like that the figure singularly captures all the elements of phylogeography - but perhaps it could be simplified somehow or just removed.Thompsma (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, remove it and move to the subarticle, where the picture can be comfortably increased in size, and more space can be used in discussing it. Sasata (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

'Okay - you answered my question posed earlier.'Thompsma (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Moved information to phylogeography.'Thompsma (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(cont.) Ecology and the environment Sasata (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• section headers should avoid using the title word
  • I strained to remove as many as possible, but some are part of fixed names, such as "population ecology". --Ettrig (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• "This section describes the physical environmental attributes or parameters that are external to the level of biological organization under investigation, including abiotic factors such as temperature, radiation, light, chemistry, climate and geology, and biotic factors, including genes, cells, organisms, members of the same species (conspecifics) and other species that share a habitat." OMG. Try reading that sentence aloud, and pretend you're saying it to a grade 12 student. Do you see what I mean?

Revised and done.Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The physical environmental connection means that the laws of thermodynamics applies to ecology." Physical as opposed to emotional, mental, or spiritual? fix laws->apply

Revised and done - it is a complicated idea, hopefully I explained it simply enough.Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• That Mason et al. boxquote really isn't doing it for me … It feels like it's a paragraph's worth of information stuffed into a sentence that leaves my brain gasping for mental air after reading. It's another sentence that's fun to read out loud :) In my opinion, the first paragraph would be better (well, easier at least) if the first, second, and last two sentences were kept and the middle stuff removed. *cue violin music in background* Remember the big picture; this is more than just about improving an article for Wikipedia. Millions of people will, over the years, be coming to this page to read and learn about a globally important topic that affects every living thing on earth. It behooves us to make this article as accessible, enjoyable, and exciting as possible to all future generations; in this way, we can make a small positive difference in the world. </music>
• "…they conceptually link back together as a holocoenotic[4] system." The external links have to be fixed

Got it and working on it.'Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The last paragraph is difficult too. My eyes start to glaze a bit when the words "metaphysical hierarchy" are used. Can these concepts be described without using these words? Have a look at the first paragraph of the holism article. Honestly, the first paragraph of the holism article, although it probably doesn't impart the same complexity and nuance as you intend, is much easier to understand.

Got it and working on it.'Thompsma (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• in contrast, the next section on "Metabolism and the early atmosphere" is enjoyable and easy to read and understand (and I note the absence of any really long sentences …). I also like the boxquote as well, and think it sums ups the concept of metabolism in simple language. I suggest more links though: methane, ammonia, greenhouse effects, the Great Oxidation, anaerobic, methanogen, anoxygenic, hydrogen sulphide, fermentation

Done --Ettrig (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The climatic history of Earth is characterized by a series of major transitions separated by long periods of relative stability." this was said already earlier in the paragraph

Done --Ettrig (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(cont.) Water

• "When soils become flooded, they quickly lose oxygen from low-concentration (hypoxic) to an (anoxic) environment where anaerobic bacteria thrive among the roots." I'm not quite sure what this is trying to say… the soil itself transforms from hypoxic to anoxic, or the oxygen moves from the hypoxic to the anoxic regions after flooding?

FixedThompsma (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Water also influences the spectral properties of light that becomes more diffuse as it is reflected off the water surface and submerged particles." Also confusing… the spectral properties of light become more diffuse?

FixedThompsma (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• "For example, the roots and stems develop large cellular air spaces to allow for…" Do they develop cellular spaces (in the cell) or spaces between the cells (extracellular)?

Both actually. I'll take another look to see if I can clarify.Thompsma (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)doneThompsma (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• this section could use more wikilinks (making sure of course to not repeat links already linked in previous sections) e.g., diffusion, respiration, nitrate, manganic ions, ferric ions, sulfate, methanogen bacteria, halophyte, osmoregulate, electrochemical gradient

DoneThompsma (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The activity of soil microorganisms and the chemistry of the water reduces the oxidation-reduction potentials of the water." "reduces" as in "make smaller" or as in oxidation/reduction?

reduces as in oxidation/reduction - fixed to clarify.Thompsma (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Salt water also requires special physiological adaptations to deal with water loss." I did not know salt water had to make physiological adaptations!

Fixed.'Thompsma (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Their gills form electrochemical gradients that mediate salt excrusion in salt water …" I did not know the word excrusion… I looked it up and it means "painful or excruciating"? I guessing this should be excretion?

Done.Thompsma (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• suggested wlinks in the gravity subsection: tectonic plates, geomorphic, orogeny, erosion, biomechanics, cardiovascular system

Done.'Thompsma (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the '"Pressure" subsection: "Water pressure in the depths of oceans requires adaptations to deal with the different living conditions." Water pressure does not require adaptation, organisms need to adapt to water pressure

In addition, the need for adaptation is there only if there is migration from lower pressure. --Ettrig (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Migration could also be considered an adaptation to the environment - so I did not add anything about this.Thompsma (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Water transportation through trees" is not an example of ambient pressure. The pressure discussed in the second reference is the negative pressure that should be created by the transportation according to the prevailing theory, but has proven difficult to detect. --Ettrig (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Fixed...added new citation and reworded to clarify pressure role in transport.'Thompsma (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• In subsection "Fire", Charles Cooper needs disambiguation

'Done. Had to create a page on Charles Cooper, difficult to dig up information - but he was widely published.'Thompsma (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "…because methane is also a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more effective at absorbing long-wave radiation on a 100 year time scale." more effective than what?

Done.'Thompsma (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

History break

Historical roots of ecology

• MOS frowns upon reusing the article title in section headers; how about just "History"?

This has been done by someone. --Ettrig (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Several published books provide extensive coverage of the classics." This isn't any different for any science, and could be removed without loss

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Such examinations were conducted by important natural historians including James Hutton and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck contributed to the development of ecology." Grammar needs fixing; we also don't need to tell the readers they were "important".

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The term "ecology" (German: Oekologie) is a more recent scientific development" Doesn't sound correct to say a term is a scientific development

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The number of authors publishing on the topic of ecology has grown considerably since the turn of 20th century.[31] The explosion of information available to the modern researcher of ecology makes it an impossible task for one individual to sift through the entire history. Hence, the identification of classics in the history of ecology is a difficult designation to make." To me, this seems like editorializing that could be cut completely from here (and maybe moved into the daughter article?) without affecting the overall message.

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• What do you think about removing the "Parallel development" subsection and integrating that text with the rest of the section?

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "The history of ecology remains an active area of study, often published in the Journal of the History of Biology [1]" I'm sure all things discussed in the article are still active areas of study, so probably don;t need to explicitly need to point that out here (nor the reference to another Ecology journal)

'Done'Thompsma (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis

Ecosystem services and the biodiversity crisis Sasata (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The WWF 2008 living planet report and other researchers report that human civilization has exceeded the bio-regenerative capacity of the planet." This is an interesting, if sober, statement. I will check the sources myself on my next read-through, but I'm wondering in advance if it would be a good idea to mention the (contrary) opinions of any other organizations.

'It just isn't the WWF...there are quite a few independent publications that have concluded the same. One of the most recent publications was in Nature with the expanded paper published in Ecology and Society: [20][21]. Perhaps I should enter these citations and mention that this has been independently confirmed?'Thompsma (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• the two boxquotes should be unboxed, and a bare link converted to web citation

'Which two? This could help to reduce this section. It might be useful to put this in a stand alone page, but the problem is that it doesn't really go under one title. It is an imporant and very active part of ecology - so it seems relevant to the main page. Suggestions???'Thompsma (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• this section was quite interesting and engaging, but on the other hand, I'm wondering if it reads a bit too much like an editorial…. I'll just make a note of that here for now, but will carefully check the references against the article text on my next pass through and make a more informed judgement then.

• Needs trimming: Sasata (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• "See also": should only include links that have not already been used in the article

'Great to know...I'll have a look. Other people have added those.'Thompsma (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Further reading": try incorporating some currently listed as sources in the article. Also, maybe give priority to those which link to a PDF and so are easily accessible to everyone.

Publication start for Population Ecology

This article says that Population Ecology started publication 1952 and that it is the journal of The Society of Population Ecology. They say themselves that the Society exists from 1961. I think some kind of explanation is needed here. --Ettrig (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The first publication in Researches on Population Ecology was in 1952[22] - perhaps the society was incorporated 9 years later? I can't access the link to clarify this - the link seems to be broken.Thompsma (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went and removed it. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Table

I suggest to contract the table on 'Population Ecology' section to save the space. There is a large blank grey space which is of no use. - DSachan (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a demonstration??Thompsma (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't, but probably people involved in list making can help. Maybe even Sasata knows it. - DSachan (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I requested some help on Wikipedia:Help desk#Fixing table in Ecology#Population ecologyThompsma (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology of Ecology in lead

I noticed that Eartdirt removed some of the greek etymology from the lead - which was probably the right thing to do. However, I just wanted to throw this out there. All through high school I remember learning that Ecology stemmed from home or household. Now I go back to the original source and learn that Ernst Haeckel included a second greek root:

(from Greek: οἶκος, "house" or "living relations"; Greek: χώρα, "dwelling place" or "distributional area"; -λογία, "study of")

I was always confused by Eco means 'home' as the root word, but dwelling place and distributional area makes more sense. I threw this up because I didn't know what to do. Most texts give reference to the first greek etymology, but the second comes from ancient greek and it seems more fitting for what ecology is. If we were to reduce this should we break convention and use the ancient greek etymology for the word? It seems equally legit since it is penned in with Haeckel's notes when he first coined the term.Thompsma (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, this is a general reference encyclopedia. Normally, I would suggest adding an etymology section, but due to the length of the article I won't. This bit of history trivia does not belong in the lead of all places, perhaps the history section if you find it absolutely vital. Earthdirt (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a proposition to be disagreed with - but a question of choice. I am not suggesting that we describe the history. What I was suggesting is that we use either: {lang-el|οἶκος}}, "house" or "living relations"; or: Greek: χώρα, "dwelling place" or "distributional area". The question was, which translation should be used? It is more common to see the translation of eco as home, but the more ancient Greek version of the root for eco - Greek: χώρα makes more sense. Both were used in Haeckel's original publication coining the term. Thompsma (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the one that everyone uses, cause that's what people need/want to know, the other does make better sense but it's trivia. Earthdirt (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good job on the review so far, but hopefully this can move a bit quicker. Been under review for a while, granted this one is understandable given the huge scope. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  Placing back in the queue due to lack of a response on either side (looks like the writer stopped editing). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No reply from the main editor since I poked him on April 1st, and looks like he hasn't edited since Mar 13. There's been a lot of improvement in this article, but there's also still a lot of work to do, and unfortunately I lack the expertise to finish this one off myself. Will remove from the GAN queue now. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still here, I just had to take a break for my thesis. I'll keep working at this - I come in spits and spurts, but I will get this finished eventually. Thanks Sasata!!Thompsma (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Completed the editorial suggestions

I have now gone through the complete list of editorial suggestions and made all the corrections. I have even gone back over some of the text and trimmed the article down quite significantly. This is probably ready to be re-nominated for GA and so I will go ahead and do this.Thompsma (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)