Talk:Struggle for existence

Peer Review due 4/15

I thought the article was very well written and concise. Your lead section provides a great overview on the whole article and sets up a great structure for the article. The article is well balanced but I think there could be more supporting information within your different sections of historical development. Within the Malthus section you could talk about the Malthusian curve or even find a picture of it to explain. There is also a Wikipedia page called Malthusian catastrophe which contributed to his ideas of struggle for existence. He studied how catastrophic events like disease and famine kept populations in check and I believe this would be a great addition to your article. Within the Darwin section I think it is important to talk about his voyage on the Beagle and his findings as an explorer on reproduction rates and struggle for existence. Within the Wallace section you make a claim 'Additionally, Wallace claimed that it was the collection of chapters 3-12 of the first volume of An Essay on the Principle of Population that helped him develop his theory.', for the general public who have never read Malthus' work won't know what those chapters contain so a little background information here too would be great. The rest of the information looks great. The article is very unbiased and supports all of it's claims. Although there were many critiques of the idea of the struggle for existence and many people rejected it. It might be nice if there was a critiques section where you showed the unbiased arguments between those that accepted and rejected the theory. Overall I enjoyed reading your article and think you did a great job since you had to work from scratch. Your references look reliable and for every topic you cover there is a source/footnote to support it.

Lgn006 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review #2

I am also contributing my feedback for this article as an assignment for my History of Ecology course. After reading my classmate’s suggestions about the five main points of the article, I definitely agree with most of the suggestions she made to help improve the article.

For the lead section, I commend the overall summary of the concept of the struggle for existence, as it definitely gives an overview of the topic to individuals hoping to quickly learn more by browsing for a quick summary of the theory about the struggle for existence between organisms. The lead section is a sufficient length that fairly contributes information to introduce each section of the article. It clearly articulates how Malthus, Darwin and Wallace all contributed their theories about the struggle for existence to the development of the study of evolution and the study of ecology. I would, however, suggest adding a link for “natural selection” so readers can access more information about the topic if they choose. It also might be helpful to add Kropotkin’s name when the Russian concept of struggle for existence is introduced.

The structure of the article is very clear and is set-up in a way that is coherent and makes sense to the reader. The background section is helpful to further explain the general overview of the topic that goes into greater relevant detail than the lead section. The historical development section is divided into subsections based on individual contributors, which seems very useful since their contributions were very influential and did not necessarily take place in a specific sequence of time.

The main aspects of the topic are balanced well, as the historical development, alternative theories, and present day applications are logistically organized and explained in sufficient detail. I would recommend adding any other present-day applications to the existing section, as it is the section that seems the most sparse. Understanding the current application could also help the further comprehension of the history of ecology as a science.

The coverage of the article is definitely neutral and stated in a clear, fair manner. There is no sense of a bias that would make the theory of the struggle for existence seem overwhelmingly positive or negative. The article does not read like a persuasive essay, which shows the neutrality of the facts stated.

Finally, the references used are quality sources that give readers an opportunity to find additional information, should they choose. The references look reliable and the footnotes added give supporting evidence to arguments and facts addressed. Overall, I found the article well put together and definitely coherent. Great job contributing to the article, it is clear that you put in a lot of work and research! Ced015 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall you did a great job with your article on the Struggle for Existence. The lead section provides with a clear summary of what you will be talking about in the article and it is also well balanced according to the different authors you mention. Another positive aspect of your article is that the structure is clear, you have headings and subheadings that are well placed throughout the article. Something that I would suggest is for you to add an image or two to make the article more appealing, something that you could add would be a graph explaining Malthus's theory of the Struggle for Existence as my classmate suggested earlier. I think your article is well balanced and you talk about each author equally since you do not talk about one author much more than another one. This article also seems to have no bias since you do not necessarily favor any author's particular view on the Struggle for Existence. You also have sources for each portion of information that you offer which helps strengthen your article. Thank you for making this contribution to Wikipedia, and I enjoyed reading your article since it was helpful to me and will be to other people who are trying to understand more about this subject. Aoc001 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Work in progress

The Darwin section seemed to wander off topic a bit, I've completely revised the first part to show how Darwin was aware of the "struggle for existence" and Malthusian ideas before he read Malthus, and show how it took him some time to change his terminology from war of nature towards struggle for existence over several years. Note the broad meaning. I've probably got into rather much detail, will review trimming that. . . dave souza, talk 19:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Struggle for existence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XV123szvUikJ:www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_06_18.htm+%22the+beasts+and+plants,+the+society+of+England+with+its+division+of+labour,+competition,+opening+up+of+new+markets,%22+inventions+%22and+Malthusian%22+%22struggle+for+existence%22+%22It+is+Hobbes%E2%80%99%22+%22bellum+omnium+contra+omnes%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=en with https://web.archive.org/web/20140424215128/http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_06_18.htm on http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_06_18.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)