User:Keldanie/sandbox

Review of Ethnobotany Article

Overview

The references in the article seem to be from unbiased, reliable sources and the article itself is neutral in tone. However, the lack of citations in some paragraphs, especially toward the end of the article, is concerning. Additionally, I think that some ideas are underrepresented and should be elaborated on. The link for the #4 reference is dead, and this citation is used for a quite early in the article.

What I Would Add

In the "Medieval and Renaissance" section, The author states that a person named Hildegard of Bingen was important during that time. However, there is no more information here about this person. I would add some information about why she was notable during this time, and what was notable about her.

In the "Issues" section, I would elaborate about the issue of gender bias in ethnobotany. Right now, it is only stated that a gender bias exists and not much else about it. I think information about the gender bias and why it exists, as well as some examples of it (rather than just a claim of its existence), would be helpful. The same goes for the other issue stated in the very short "Issues" section. There should be more information available about some of the ethical concerns. What are some specific ethical concerns that ethnobotanists have faced when interacting with indigenous populations? What are the ramifications? I would add more information about both of these issues.

What I would Change

In the paragraph about ethnobotany as a modern science, there is a statement indicating that early ethnobotany was not reliable or helpful. This statement seems awkwardly phrased, and is not backed up by any examples about how ethnobotany was unreliable other than the statement about botanists and anthropologists not collaborating well. I think that the wording of the statement should be changed and examples added.

More than anything, this article seems to be a list or timeline of things that happened in the history of ethnobotany, rather than a description of ethnobotany itself. Instead of writing one or two sentences about many events in ethnobotany's history, it would be better to elaborate or expand on a few of the most important facts.

Concerns

There seem to be very few citations throughout the sections "Medieval and Renaissance", "The Age of Reason", and "As a modern science". Additionally, a lot of the sections, especially the one about ethnobotany as a modern science, introduce so many names and new people that it gets confusing and does not flow well at all. There needs to be more relevance to the people introduced in the article, rather than just using their name in the sentence. Why was what they did important to the field of ethnobotany?

There are some dead links in the references, and the link for reference #4 is the only information provided for the citation.

References

Keldanie (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)