Nature was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 13, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 7, 2007 Good article nominee Listed March 22, 2008 Peer review Reviewed September 27, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept July 5, 2024 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Top‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello,

• here in en-wiki Category:Phenomena are part of the Category:Nature.
• in Wikidate it is vice versa: nature (Q7860) is part of/instance of phenomenon (Q483247)
  but in the description it is written like here in en-wiki: "nature = natural, physical, or material world and its phenomena"
• in Commons also vice versa to en-wiki: Category:Natur part of Category:Phenomena.

so.... what to do ??? Are those just errors in Wikidata and Commons which need to be corrected or is it still an unsolved philosophical question? Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an issue for this article. As for it being 'an unsolved philosophical question', I'm not sure it is even that - just ambiguity resulting from less-than-precisely-defined words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article here does not focus on the concept of nature itself, but rather rehashing content from other articles. Nature is a human construct and thus it should be treated as way: there should be content about how this concept was developed over time and how does perception of nature change across cultures. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly agree that 'nature as a social construct' is a legitimate subject. I'd think you'll find it difficult to convince people that this article should only discuss the topic that way though. Lots of things are social constructs, but we still write articles on them. The article is more than a little unfocussed, certainly, and maybe more on the 'social construct' side of things would be a good idea. It needs someone to write it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that the article should only focus on that human aspect, that would be undue. But it seems that both you and me agree that the article should definitely talk more about that aspect. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Everything is a social construct, and if you want, you can add a section about it. Placing big maintenance template in a GA wouldn't help. If you think that the article is incomplete/not a GA without this info, you can go to GAR. Artem.G (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything isn't a social construct. Not as the term is used in the social sciences. You don't need new terms that describe 'everything'. As for the template though, it is clearly inappropriate. It neither explains what the perceived problem is, nor offers any sort of solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correction! just for my understanding - can we say that 'cosmos' or 'universe' are social constructs?

I should admit that I'm quite ignorant in social sciences, but my point was mostly about a template being inappropriate. Artem.G (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Wikipedia, the cosmos is (sorta) but the universe definitely isn't. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion had stalled, do we have consensus about the tag? Anyone can place a tag, but it's not clear what's lacking, and it's ok for a wp article to be incomplete, as it's a work in progress. Article looks good for a GA, so if nobody is planning to work on it or at least proposed a good way to develop it, the tag is useless and should be removed.

CactiStaccingCrane, can you show any reliable source that talks about "nature as a human construct"? Artem.G (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.[1]"

To

"Humans are part of nature and our activity is often incorrectly understood as separate from simultaneous nautral phenomena.[1]" JaydenMurphy (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The given citation (fittingly in the journal Nature) does not argue that the view you object to is incorrect. It describes a number of different, and often incompatible, views and the implications arising therefrom without taking a stance on whether one is more correct than another. The discussion section also says, There have always been many different policies of nature, and the main reason appears that there are many different conceptions of nature, which do not entail the same priorities, objects, and methods. These conceptions change with philosophical groundings, and are then deeply rooted in people. Hence, science cannot (and must not) artificially standardize them, all the more that science also experiences such philosophical discrepancies.

The article is open access and quite accessible to non-scientists. Very much worth reading as an example of how NPOV is supposed to work. On that note, this article's lede could be tweaked to better reflect the multiple views considered in the source, but I think it would be a good exercise for you to read the article and propose a more reflective and comprehensive edit rather than a single word edit supporting your personal POV. Feel free to reopen this request and ping me if you do so.

Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please remove the template {{Other uses}} because it's already been represented by Redirect automatically. Thank you. Natsuinyerere (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Natsuinyerere (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has more images than I've seen anywhere else on Wikipedia, which in itself seems harmless. What bothers me, however, is that they all depict nature as if it were made for postcards (or science textbooks).

We do not want to add anything that might upset readers, but, especially with so many images, shouldn't at least a few acknowledge that much of nature registers to us as gross or disgusting? The Life section would be the obvious place to include something to capture this aspect of nature, and maybe also one of the five in the lead could acknowledge this.

Also, a separate point: the top image of the article appears to have been HDRed or otherwise run through some rather aggressive filters. Is this really an appropriate choice for this article?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the good article criteria. I have outlined my concerns below:

• There are numerous uncited parargraphs, including whole sections that do not have citations.
• There are sources listed in the "Further reading" section. Can these be used as inline citations?

Is anyone willing the address the above concerns? If not, I may nominate this for WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should people treat animals like they do. What did they do to you to deserve such treatment even the smallest animal is still important like an ant I've been helping them by get them away from rain and I've made them a city. The baby ants can't go in the city because they might be eaten. Many other animals why die and this will backfire on humans eventually. Pls donate to 5083322713

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cristian Huitron (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cristian Huitron (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I propose adding a paragraph to the Nature article to expand on the historical evolution of the term, focusing on its philosophical roots in ancient Greek thought. The addition highlights how physis initially meant the intrinsic process of growth and development in living beings and how its meaning broadened to cover the entire physical universe and its governing laws. This is supported by the authoritative source: Arthur O. Lovejoy's *The Great Chain of Being* (1936).

This addition aims to enhance readers’ understanding of the conceptual development of "nature". Feedback or suggestions are welcome.

Thank you! Love.cinema.art (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally we would have a "History of the concept" section with an outline of the key meanings and changes over time. The proposed source sounds great. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]