User:MccEmma/Afforestation/LivyRosa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) MccEmma


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MccEmma/Afforestation


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Afforestation

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.)

Lead Section:

The lead has been updated, and is still concise and contains information that is useful in a lead as a basic summary. From what I can the italics is the information that was already written for the article so the basic definition for the topic was pre-existing and the information added was meant to show the general future goal of Afforestation which I think is a nice way to end the introduction. The definition of Afforestation does give a good idea of this topic means and there is also a sentence to describe its purpose which seems like a good introduction to the topic to me. There is a brief description of the benefits of Afforestation that I think should maybe become it's own section apart from the introduction because just one sentence seems a bit short for Benefits when there is a whole section for Criticisms. I know that the whole article isn't here so maybe information about how Afforestation is a benefit is scattered throughout the article and it doesn't need its own section but I still think that it would be a addition to the article.

Content:

There are only two content sections in the draft article but they both are relevant to the topic. For the Canada section, there isn't any information that doesn't belong there and it does contain useful information about what has occurred in Canada regarding Afforestation. I'm not sure how much literature content there is for this topic, but I think that there is still some general question that could be answered in here if the information could be found. Because Canada is a big province, one thing that I'm curious about is where Afforestation could occur? Is there any one province that is better at planting trees and not cutting them down? But I liked how neutral this section was, it was well written in a way that just gave facts and didn't give an opinion.

I really liked the Criticisms section, it brought up a couple of points that I never would have thought of and it's very concise and easy to read. But again, if there is a criticism section I do think that a Benefits section would make the article seem more balanced.

One thing that I am curious about is how Afforestation land is managed, do they just plant trees and let them grow without monitoring the land after that? Also, it would be nice to know what kind of land gets forested in an Afforestation project, like do they plant trees in meadows or agricultural land or does that just depend on the specific project?

Tone and Balance:

I think that this article has been written so that the tone is neutral, and the content added to me seems very neutral, especially in the Canada section. There are no claims that make a stand for one viewpoint or another. The one thing, which I have mentioned before is the criticism section makes a gap with the lack of a benefits section. The Canada section does make me wonder what is going on in other countries and which country has the highest rate of Afforestation, but I do know that the whole article is in the sandbox draft so I can't really say if the whole article seems balanced or imbalanced.

Sources and References:

For the information added there are scientific articles that have been added as the reference, and there is a government of Canada website as well. So all of the sources added are from reliable sources and they seem to be current and reflective of the topic. For all of the new information written there is always a source to back-up the information.

Organization

I think that the article here was easy to read and the grammar was well done. The whole article is not in the sandbox draft, so it's hard to comment on the organization of the different sections that are in the sandbox draft. But from what is there in the draft the order of the sections make sense. I really like the idea of italicizing the content that was pre-existing in the article as a way to track of the two separate content, I wish I had thought of doing that!