| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently created it and I want to see how it could be improved to be more clear, concise and understandable to a general audience.
Thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship
edit- Lead is mostly good. A couple of things:
- Might be worth clarifying exactly what " Progress towards this goal is generally measured from a biodiversity baseline of 2020 levels." means.
- I would expect some discussion about who came up with it, when, and why.
- The "Distinction from existing policy approaches" subsection is irritatingly technical. Look to make the differences as clear and straightforward as possible—draw clear parallels between NP, NNL and NPI, and mark the differences. A table may be helpful: see WP:TABLE.
- Make sure that there is as little "corporate jargon" as possible. Take the third paragraph of the subsection, "Nature positive also emphasises review and transformation to align all the decisions within a business with the goal of achieving nature positive..." I think the point could be conveyed in around 60% of the current wordcount. Clarity and precision should be the buzzwords for you.
- Keep WP:DUPLINK in mind. This script may help.
- "no concise headline goal to address biodiversity loss...no equivalent for biodiversity loss" unnecessary duplication.
- "Nature positive was therefore proposed as a "global goal for nature"" so the definition of nature positive was agreed upon before it was formally defined?
- Avoid external links in text.
The above is applicable to the rest of the article too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)