Talk:Eutrophication/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

Needs citations:

1. "The process may be made worse by the use of fertilisers in crops such as maize, rice, and sugarcane grown on the floodplain."
2. "Phosphorus is often regarded as the main culprit in cases of eutrophication in lakes subjected to point source pollution from sewage."
3. "Increased content of nitrates in soil frequently leads to undesirable changes in vegetation composition and many plant species are endangered as a result of eutrophication in terrestrial ecosystems, such as the majority of orchid species in Europe."  Done
4. "but there are three particularly troubling ecological impacts: decreased biodiversity, changes in species composition and dominance, and toxicity effects."
5. "In order to gauge how to best prevent eutrophication from occurring, specific sources that contribute to nutrient loading must be identified." This could be viewed as OR, reword or cite the sources that state this.
6. "Reducing eutrophication should be a key concern when considering future policy, and a sustainable solution for everyone, including farmers and ranchers, seems feasible" Needs to be cited, as this appears as OR.
7. "Rectification actions aimed at abating eutrophication and algal blooms are usually desirable, but the focus of intervention should not necessarily be aimed at eliminating blooms, but towards creating a sustainable balance that maintains or improves ecosystem health."

Other issues:

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. For an article of this length, it should probably be two to three paragraphs. Make sure to touch on each section being discussed in the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. "The World Resources Institute has identified 375 hypoxic coastal zones in the world, concentrated in coastal areas in Western Europe, the Eastern and Southern coasts of the US, and East Asia, particularly in Japan." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on this sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph. Fix any other occurrences in the article.
3. "Ecosystems (like some meadows, forests, and bogs that are characterized by low nutrient content and species-rich, slowly growing vegetation adapted to lower nutrient levels) are overgrown by faster growing and more competitive species-poor vegetation, like tall grasses, that can take advantage of unnaturally elevated nitrogen levels and the area may be changed beyond recognition and vulnerable species may be lost." This sentence is a little long, consider splitting into two sentences.
4. The long list in the "Ecological effects" section should be converted to prose and should be cited as well.
5. The subheadings under the "Nonpoint sources" heading are not needed. Same goes for the "Minimizing nonpoint pollution: future work" heading.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Crossed-out points on needing citations are common knowledge in scientific field. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Since some effort was made in addressing the above points, I'll leave the article on hold for another week. Please address the other issues so the article does not need to be delisted. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for another week and no other improvements were made. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Natural eutrophication

Listing this article in a series about pollution accounts only for what is known as cultural eutrophication. It fails to account for the natural eutrophication process. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.4 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Natural and cultural eutrophication can (and are) bother covered in this article. There is no harm in having this article included in a series on water pollution. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge Cultural eutrophication

Cultural eutrophication is a sub-topic and could be covered here in the main article. Propose merging the articles for clarity. —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Lfstevens (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Probably a safe bet by now.--BDD (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)