Wikipedia:Peer review/Nature/archive1

Nature PR archive1

This is the current core topics collaboration of the fortnight. Please take a look and let us know what else needs to be done to bring this up to FA status. Thank you! — RJH (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article. I did a quick spell check but not much to change apart from that. TimVickers 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

Is the summary of Earth's history in the first section relevant? I would expect an article on nature to describe its characteristics, but not necessarily their history. Seems like some paragraphs could be cut out.
On the other hand, I think the section on weather could use some expansion. More on the seasons.
Information on biogeography is lacking -- the biomes are a common method of organizing nature. The "Ecosystems" section could be expanded to include them.
Perhaps a little more on the relationship between nature and art -- especially 18th century Romanticism (e.g. the Hudson River school).
There should be something on the relationship between nature and human spirituality. Thoreau?

The article definitely has been improved; but, in general, I think it's too heavily focused on the scientific. -- bcasterline • talk 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. — RJH (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Matter and Energy section seems very confused to me. In fact, I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is: it doesn't seem to me to have any clear direction, just several facts about nature that have been strung together. I've also raised this point on the talk page. I don't want to seem uppity and arrogant, but being a physicist myself, I can add what physicists (or at least what I) regard the word "nature" to mean. Krea 15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]