User:Altosaxma'am77/Deforestation in Thailand/Sophbonn Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Altosaxma'am77


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Altosaxma'am77/Deforestation in Thailand
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Deforestation in Thailand
 * Deforestation in Thailand

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

From the prompt above:


 * Terms to link:
 * Thailand's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
 * in amelioration section
 * Tone and Balance: I think you did a great job of remaining neutral and adding more perspectives that the original author did not, especially regarding the ecology monks and activist opinion of the National Forest Service.
 * Organization: I personally liked how you split up the lead section into multiple paragraphs. It's definitely easier to follow

general edits:

lead paragraph


 * I think the previous writer left you with a tricky organizational dilemma with the first two paragraphs in the lead section. You could consider switching the order of the first and second paragraph so that the lead paragraph follows a more sequential order. The challenge there is finding a good opening sentence. Maybe something like "Prior to international interest, Thailand's forests were mainly utilized on a small scale for xyz..." But I get not wanting to touch the previous author's work and I know that's a lot of moving pieces.
 * For this sentence: "Much of the growth of cropland in the highlands of Thailand, where most of the deforestation has occurred, comes as a result of the growth and globalization of Thailand's agricultural economy and the relative scarcity of land available in the lowlands."
 * firstly I don't think you have to specify that's where most deforestation occurred since the previous author did earlier in the paragraph
 * also I'm curious if the forest was cleared specifically for cropland to produce exports. If that is what it is implying you could reorder the sentence like so: "Highland croplands have been created by clearing forests in order to meet demands of growth and globalization. The highlands have been targeted in part due to scarcity of lowlands." I think it still works the way you wrote it, but following a more sequential explanation is easier to follow for me personally.
 * I really liked the last paragraph of the lead section! I'm also covering that topic a bit also and I think you explained their policy approach really well.

Climate Change section


 * I really like the first two sentences, they are very concise.
 * " As awareness of this behavior's ramifications for the climate became more known">>"became better known" ?
 * " That decline in Thailand's forest land c overage ..." just flows a bit better
 * "country's Northern forests" I don't think northern needs to be capitalized
 * Overall I really like this paragraph. I think it's organized well and it's very succinct

Amelioration


 * honestly I didn't really know what this term meant. I realized there's no wiki page for it, but maybe consider adding a definition or external link because there is a whole section on it.
 * So I think this is mainly an issue of marrying the other author's writing with yours:
 * "Thailand's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment's "20-Year Strategic Plan for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (B.E. 2560 – 2579)" (2016–2036) addresses deforestation with its first strategy. Among other goals, it aimed to raise the nation's forest cover to 40%, of which 25% was planned to consist of "conserved forests" and 15% "commercial forests". However, as of 2015, an estimated 24% of Thai forests were made up of planted forest as a result of government actions to address deforestation through the promotion of reforestation programs"
 * I see the point you are trying to make at the end of this paragraph. But the sentence starting with "however" confuses me a bit. Maybe explain if planted forests fall under the conserved forest category, the commercial forest category, or a whole other category. I don't fully understand how they factor in.
 * Strong end to the paragraph!

Overall


 * This is a really good article as is! A lot of my notes are just what I prefer as a reader so take them with a grain of salt. I guess my biggest thing would be that sentence in the amelioration section. I just had a hard time following the point you were trying to make. I think just adding a little more detail there will help clarify. But everything else is organizational stuff. I think you did a really great job of updating the previous author's work, it feels much more well-rounded than the original article!

Altosaxma'am77 Response
Hello! I was able to take up all of these factors and include most of them in my article. As I noted in our previous conversation, there were a couple of phrasing ideas that I took in a different direction, but I really do appreciate the feedback! It was really nice to hear back from someone else with this, as any of your suggestions for word choice were perfect to help me cut back on my own worst habits.

Thanks, and good luck with everything!

Altosaxma&#39;am77 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)