Talk:Telecoupling

Untitled

I added a section for limitations to telecoupling to this article to round out the idea and shift focus to what telecoupling may entail moving forward.

Overall, I felt the telecoupling article was very informative and helped me understand more about what telecoupling is, along with relevant examples of how it has been implemented. I haven’t heard of telecoupling before so this was a great start for my learning. I like the flow of ideas. The article starts broad by introducing what telecoupling is and how it works, and then moves to the specifics of how this topic fits within a global context and provides some examples. I’m excited to see how this article develops and where the ideas lead! It seems like there is still a good amount to expand on considering this framework is relatively new. The article also does a great job of remaining neutral and conveying key information in an effective manner. Ravanvoo (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall I found this article to be very informative and information heavy. I focused mainly on the example section working to re-word and add to the three main examples. I could not find the source you used for the 4th example so I would recommend either removing it or finding a new source. In addition to that I mainly just added some grammar and logistic edits mainly regarding formatting and headings. The article does a very good job of staying neutral throughout and displaying the uses and limitations of telecoupling. I think something that could help be improved is more on the true impacts of urbanization on telecoupling and adding additional subheadings to help guide the reader throughout the article. I think just breaking it down and utilizing more formatting elements as you go along in this will only enhance your article! Liv Davis (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For the first writing review, the writing in this article is really strong. I made some very light edits for grammar, and would suggest moving the "How it Works" section to just after the introduction, before "Forms of Telecoupling" for increased readability.Weilh (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is one that I continue to enjoy reading and learn more from with every read. Now that we have had a class discussing telecoupling, I feel like I have a better understanding of the article and am more able to comprehend the main ideas. I like that the author has included multiple examples to outline various forms of telecoupling and the ways in which this framework manifests itself. The author also continues to narrow down this topic into more specific segments and does a great job of outlining her ideas. Each sentence is meaningful and written with intent. It is turning into a really robust and informational piece! Ravanvoo (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Isagreen — Edit Suggestions

• First Note: The metacoupling section could use a bit of work. The first problem for me, is the sourcing. While Wikipedia does state a need for sources for the whole article, it is good to apply this to each section as well. With only one citation for this whole point, it feels a bit lackluster in its relevance. • Second Note: This problem appears again in your recently updated/added examples. Your two case studies “Biofuel Mandates” and “Red Imported Fire Ants Invasion” draw from not only one, but the same source. The problem here is that the overall article has relevance, but you might consider adding sources that contextualize these cases in telecoupling as a theory. The more sources the more relevant your text seems. Further, without them, your text can appear as bias. • Third Note: This entry could certainly use more photos. I do not want to add any, as I think it would be best if you picked a diagram that you felt best outlined how telecoupling works. But when you can, this would be a nice addition to the page giving the reader a visual element to follow along with. • Fourth Note: Added links to other Wikipedia pages: Deforestation, Amazon Rainforest, Biophysical, ecosystem services, and soybeans (an odd addition, but you might get more page views!). • Fifth Note: I also edited some of the text to have a little more flow. The most noticeable edits will be the changed abbreviation currently B&R Initiative to BRI. • Sixth Note: You might also consider adding a section on “spill off” as a connection to our course, as that seemed to be an interest for many of our classmates and might be for others. • This is an awesome entry! Isagreen (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Rachel V final review

Hannah F. rounded out her article by adding more pictures and summing up her ideas with a conclusion section, all of which were effective in bringing together the elements of the article. My comment for this article would be to diversify the sources for each section. Isaiah had made a previous comment about this issue in the “talk” section, but it seems like the comment could use a little more consideration as the sections rely on just a few sources each. Other than that the article does a great job of outlining telecoupling in an informative way. Even though I have been confused by the idea of telecoupling in discussions and readings, Hannah has conveyed the topic in such a helpful manner. Great work! Ravanvoo (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hanna W final review

Overall, I think this is a really strong article. I think the addition of a Limitations section as well as a conclusion help the article flow better. The writing is also very strong, and a neutral tone is maintained throughout. I think the use of graphics is also good, and I liked how many examples were used, as I felt it made the concept of telecoupling easier to understand. My main suggestion would be to increase citations used per paragraph, particularly in the deforestation section. The use of reputable, peer-reviewed sources that do not directly mention telecoupling might be a good way to increase the strength of your citations, as you can tie in telecoupling using the sources you already have while citing elsewhere (again, reputable and peer-reviewed) for basic facts about your examples. Great job!Weilh (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)