User talk:Melmacd94/sandbox

Draft Feedback

Melanie, you have put a lot of thought and research into this article draft, and you have some really good and well-referenced ideas for how to improve this article. I also appreciate that you have stated clearly what you think needs to be changed here, and that you have done a great job referencing your statements in the body of your work. Your writing clarity is also very good.

The first suggestion I would give you is to consider the length of your leader section. Do you mean that you plan to add your 2 paragraphs to the one paragraph that is already in the leader? I wonder if this might make for a long leader section, given the length of the article. It may increase clarity of the overall article if you instead added one or both of these 2 paragraphs under their own sub-headers, e.g., "Role of fire in ecosystems," and "Characterization of fire regimes". Also, by fire frequency, do you mean time between burns?

The information that you discussed on CA fire dynamics was very interesting. However, rather than removing this section, I would suggest that the information stay in the article, but with the updated information on how fires appear to affect CA brush ecosystems versus forest ecosystems. For example, perhaps say something like "It is commonly thought that the California chaparral and woodlands...is dependent...renewal... However, recent research suggest that this is true in CA forest ecosystems, but not in CA chaparral ecosystems". Note - does it say something like this in the current fire regime article?

Last, you discuss interesting information relative to invasive species! Is there an example you could provide here? Does this have any implications relative to managing fire-prone areas? Along similar lines, have you read through the information in the fire ecology Wikipedia page? As you continue to work on this fire regime page, I would encourage you to continue to think about what information best fits with this page, versus what types of information fits better under the fire ecology page. Also, are there any places where you can link to other Wikipedia pages in your article addition? Rhirshorn (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will work on incorporating my information into the leader paragraph and linking other articles in my text. I can rework the fire dynamics paragraph to be a myth debunker. I will give an example of invasive species effect on fire regime. Finally I will comb through the fire ecology page and look for overlapping information to clarify or eliminate from fire regime. Melmacd94 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

peer review

Melanie,

Overall your article is very interesting. I must first commend the formatting of your draft. It provides a lead section which makes it easier for your reader to better understand the subject. This you did by elaborating on the definition of a fire regime which gave off some good background information. Towards the end of the article you made some good edits , identifying a key point and targeting a specific area " Australia" where fire regimes are more abundant. Following that with an example sustained the articles flow and enforced aim/ point of view of the editor . Although, instead of deleting a section you should try to word around it . Even though it is proven that fire suppression causes larger less frequent wildfires you could have elaborated a little on how it is proven and supported that statement .However, it balances out because you then added Invasive species effect on fire regime.

16:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)2601:14C:4402:5C63:DC:DA79:BF38:FC25 (talk)

Moussa Peer Review of Melmacd94

To begin, your work is great. You have gone well into details about the topic while maintaining some neutrality. Also, the way you provided references to the idea you shared in the article is really what I should also do in my article. It was interesting to know how invasive species could change the pattern of fire regime. However, you may include a picture of the bush fire or wildfire to confirm the idea the readers already have from reading your material if it is allowed in this exercise. If you do let me know how you did insert it.

Thanks --Idrissou9cm (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)