Talk:Evolutionary ecology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evolutionary ecology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trevor7909. Peer reviewers: Calebszy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reillymcarr. Peer reviewers: Jtmitchell2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

another dimension needed[edit]

Needs to connect with ecological genetics, polymorphism (biology) and other technical topics. Needs to get a grip on what aspects of evolutionary theory are really central to ecology. Needs to weave in faunas, biomes and other overview concepts. Is niche not worth a thought? An appreciation of what many crossover researchers such as E.B. Ford and W.D. Hamilton contributed is missing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

r/K selection theory[edit]

could some biologists chip in at the talk page regarding the current status of this theory?·Maunus·ƛ· 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology Course Peer Review[edit]

Overall I think that a lot of good things are present within your article. There are a few areas that could be added/edited. When talking about each evolutionary model, I would start each paragraph with the specific method and bold or underline it (I think you can link it to the article with the method for more detail). The area that mentions all the notable people is very good. I think there are many more areas of evolutionary ecology that could be expanded on such as genetics, studies etc. I also think specific examples would be beneficial to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebszy (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the changes and additions look great compared to earlier editions. I think it's high quality and a very strogn article now!Calebszy (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Calebszy[reply]

Odd Structure: Listing of People[edit]

It's a bit weird to have a miscellaneous list of people who are evolutionary ecologists. I don't think this follows what I perceive to be a standard Wikipedia format for a topical article. The omission of many persons associated with this broad field is sure to be a problem. For example, why is Alfred Russell Wallace not listed? Arguably, he is more deserving of inclusion that Darwin, and fairly likely anyone else listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300A:519:8F00:B17D:B329:DB2A:BC51 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]