User:Bo789/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Deforestation in Cambodia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article because it was on the C list ecology articles list and it is a new topic for me. This topic matters because this seems to be an important topic for Cambodia. Cambodia has a lot of forests and also a very high rate of deforestation that seems to be increasing.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article began with a tone that sounded bombastic and not necessarily neutral. Perhaps this was to give importance to the article but I do not think it added to it. The different categories of information discuss many facets of this topic. I thought that this was a strong point of the article. It discussed political, social, economic and global reasons for the deforestation or push back against it. The impacts section definitely could use some more information. It did not use specifics when talking about how the deforestation has affected the wildlife, and while perhaps there is little information published on this, I do think it needs to be elaborated more. The references looked good, there were a lot of reputable sources and a wide variety of types of sources. There were several paragraphs that only referenced one article each which maybe is not the best way to present the information. The images, maps and tables were all useful additions. I also enjoyed the section on preventative measures, I felt that it was well described and added to the article a lot. This is especially true for the section on community forestry. Overall, this is a useful and good article. I think in terms of presenting the most straightforward, neutral information, it could use some sections including more information (like the wildlife section). It included a lot more cutting edge topics which was great but it could be more well rounded.