Lily's Peer Review
editHi Lily! I think you have all the right ideas on how to improve this article. It overall doesn't do a good job of explaining queer ecology in a cohesive way, so I'm glad you and your group have decided to work on it. Like you said, I also think the block quote you reference is unnecessarily academic and could be paraphrased to be more accessible. Your plan to add to this section of the article sounds like it will majorly clarify the definition of queer ecology. I like the idea of reading the source cited on Wikipedia or Foucault’s piece for that section, and I think it will really help you in adding to the article and defining the topic in a more accessible way.
I also think that something could be added to the lead part of this article (the introductory sentences) that could help define queer ecology more clearly right off the bat. I'm not sure if someone else in your group has already been assigned that part, but it might be helpful in your editing process if you all come to a mutually agreed upon definition. I like the article's mention of Judith Butler and think it could be helpful to reference some other scholars and sources that contribute to the understanding of queer ecology. Lastly, the final section of the article, titled "Arts," seems odd to me and I'm not sure why it's in there. Your group could probably take that portion out, or you could add some detail explaining why it does need to be included (if you think it should be). Otherwise, you seem to be on the right track to constructing a more accessible, clearly defined article.