Talk:Conservation psychology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conservation psychology 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

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Hey everybody, this is just a rough draft for the corrections I'm doing for this page, but if you are reviewing it I did all my edits in the opening section and the "Present Research and Future Planning section." Enjoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffRodman (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

A. progress: 4 B. I think you have a great start on article. Great job at clearly explaining the studies for people to understand. I like how the intro explains the difference between environmental and conservation psychology.

C. The information in the major section is mostly well written; however, I think it could be more objective. For instance, sentences like this: "Teaching people about the benefits of conservation is an important way to inform them and helps promote more environmentally friendly behavior, but this is fairly obvious." This gives off a subjective perspective. Also, I am confused about this sentence: "Some less know information to include is making sure people understand more about the boundaries of land they can help actually help conserve."

D. Should add hyperlink to environmental psychology. As well the last paragraph in the identity subsection should be reformatted and add citations.

E. readability: 4 F. Great job!Jamela Peterson (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ecopsychology

This appears to be almost exactly the same topic, just expressed in a more mystical way. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:looks like different movements, with different histories. My view is that the two should be kept separate, just like different religions studying the same god might be kept on separate pages - mixing the dogma would just confuse the distinctions. Klbrain (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservation psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]