Wikipedia:Peer review/Geography/archive1

Geography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on this page, but still think it has a lot of room for improvment. I think this is an extremely important page, and would like to see it at Good or featured article status one day.

Thanks, GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably take several days, but so far...

My thoughts on the "Fundamentals" section: Most of the first paragraph, and the Hughes quote, read like a textbook or an opinion essay, and the fact that large swathes are unsourced doesn't help. _pbp 02:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Hughes quote, I never liked it, but if you look at the 2007 link in the reply below it has been here for a LONG time. Reworded and restructured that section a bit to simplify it and reduce the number of headings. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed more content from the fundamentals section and merged it with content in subsequent sections. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMD

Also taking a look. Initially, there seems to be significant MOS:OVERSECTIONing, with the majority of headers covering just one paragraph. A few seem mostly to be lists of onward links, not a problem on their own (although I don't know how the use of image collages as menus interacts with ACCESS and MOS), but there should be prose explaining how all of these items are linked. A few sections lack sources, although this seems noted. Overall, the article gives the impression of trying to cover a lot of specifics without easily being able to pull them together, which I suspect is the challenge. The Communication article is worth looking at, as another very broad article trying to figure out how to weave things together. Is there a few example sources on the topic of Geography that are influencing the structure of the article? CMD (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you that parts of this smack of a "laundry list" problem _pbp 17:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in digital archeology, I recommend looking thought the old versions as it's fairly interesting how things have changed, and how some things became central parts of the page. A quick look through and the gallery of links goes back to at least 2007. Before that, they were essentially just bulleted lists similar to the notable geographers section.

I started working on this page a few years ago and the first thing I found was it seemed to be a haphazard collection of content with little organization. To answer your question, I tried to restructure large portion of it based on the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. You can read a sample here of the main source (I actually bought one or two of these chapters for this article but only have one on my current machine). The sample answers your question though where it states "The theme has been divided into four main topics: Foundations of Geography, Physical Geography, Human Geography, and Technical Geography." In organizing the page, I also looked at the Four traditions of geography and the Five themes of geography. I mentioned both, and used the five themes to flush out the "Fundamentals" section. I split the methods section into quantitative and qualitative sections, but that could likely be worked on a bit. Thanks for pointing out the communications page as an example, I'll look at that when working on this more. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]