Wikipedia:Peer review/Wood-pasture hypothesis/archive1

Wood-pasture hypothesis

I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article, and I would like to receive a general assessment

Thanks, AndersenAnders (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that English is not my first language and this is my first article of this length so bear with me.

• The article appears to provide a good overview of the Vera hypothesis. I find the article lacking in that it includes very little about competing theories or how widespread acceptance of the alternatives are. Birks and Mitchell are barely referenced. Birks has said that the high-forest hypothesis "has been widely accepted by forest ecologists and conservationists."[1] The article focuses more on dismissing critiques than it does in acknowledging the valid points that are made by critics. Please see WP:NPOV in particular WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. I appreciate the work that has been done to thoroughly document this topic but I believe that our readers need additional context to put the ideas in an appropriate perspective. This is especially relevant given that wikipedia lacks an article for the alternative interpretation of the high-forest hypothesis. --mikeu ^talk 23:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely, @Mikeu, for your time and your honest and valuable thoughts. Actually I already thought that a section dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis and its history might serve the article well. I attempted to do this in this section, but realise that expanding it into its own, more detailed section could improve the article's quality and provide perspective to readers. Admittedly this is a topic that I myself am not entirely familiar with, so I'll research that better.

I think there are two major issues in relation to the topic as a whole that I find challenging to address properly: Firstly, that it's not always entirely clear which period exactly researchers are referring to, the Holocene or Pleistocene, yet, because of its interconnectedness with the Quaternary extinction, I think it is of paramount importance to distinguish between the two, a distinction even scientific publications do not always seem make. Then, secondly, that the high-forest hypothesis is indeed so widely accepted that the general public doesn't seem to question it, or even see it as questionable, which confines the debate virtually entirely to the academic community. And wikipedia's lack of an article dedicated to the high forest hypothesis only illustrates this lack of public discourse.

I will therefore provide two more sections, one dedicated to the high-forest hypothesis, its history and the fact that it indeed represents the more widely accepted viewpoint of the two, interlinking to this article to better represent the common viewpoint, and one dedicated to critiscism raised by Birks, Mitchell and others. It may take me some time, but I'll do my best.

Thanks--AndersenAnders (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the existing text is well written and covers the topic in an understandable way. I had never heard of it before reading the references and searching for more information. I'll check back after you've added to the article and let you know if there is anything else I can think of. BTW, you can ping me with {{reply to|User:Mu301}} as my username differs from my signature. --mikeu ^talk 22:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will leave you a note here once I think I'm done --AndersenAnders (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Mu301:,

I have implemented your suggestions and the sections I pledged to add, as well as some more general information. If you find the time, I would appreciate your feedback.

Thanks --AndersenAnders (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)