User:BenjCap/Forestry in Canada/JazChapman Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BenjCap


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BenjCap/Forestry in Canada
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Forestry in Canada

Lead
Great additions to the introduction, placement of sectors list is great and flows well. After 5th reference, was a good idea to break up into two smaller sentences.

Content
The added content definatly deals well with some of the knowledge gaps from the original article. Content added is relevant and up to date and clear (all newer than 2012 some as recent as 2021). Could add in some information to Natural disturbances, original article discusses fires but not controlled burning that is needed due to prevent monoculture due to previous fire suppression practices.

Banff, A. KEEPING THE FLAME: FIRE MANAGEMENT IN THE CANADIAN PARKS SERVICE. THE ART AND SCIENCE OF FIRE MANAGEMENT, 35.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.978.4395&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=43

Tone and Balance
Article changes maintains neutrality. Would suggest using an in text citation: "Canada is the leading country for sustainable forest management with a sciences-based approach to ensure proper and sustainable management of Canadian ecosystems" could state according to the UN to more clearly show that it is the leading country.

Sources and References
Good use of sources and links to existing articles.

Talk Page
Only comment on the original article's talk page is by BenjCap asking for input on editing, no response is given so far.

Organization
Overall good organization and structural changes improves flow of content, though would suggest reviewing punctuation. In natural disturbances section, the second sentence "Two main insects place the Canadian forestry industry at risk the mountain pine beetle and the emerald ash borer." a ; should be added after risk to initiate the listing.

Images and Media
No images added.

Overall Impressions
Well done, changes made are definatly an improvement to the article. Could add in a sentence about what is presented in the article, though this might make the introduction a little too lengthy. Also careful of grammar, some awkward wording can happen when reorganizing existing material but very minor.