User:NicolasForestell/Shelterwood cutting/Kaitlin3farrell Peer Review

General info
NicolasForestell
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NicolasForestell/Shelterwood cutting
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Shelterwood cutting
 * Shelterwood cutting

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Just giving some general feed back here:


 * 1) I liked how you sorted each of the types of the cuttings. In the original wikipedia page, I noticed how the original user had these bunched together and it was a bit confusing to read. By sorting each of the cuttings into their own section, you helped with clarity!
 * 2) For the introduction, I recommend trying to make the beginning a bit more user friendly. I don't really understand what the shelterwood system is and I have to admit that I liked how the original user first introduced the concept by saying "Shelterwood cutting is the progression of forest cuttings leading to the establishment of a new generation of seedlings of a particular species or group of species without planting." as it gave me a good idea what the topic was about.
 * 3) I liked how you explained different variations of the shelterwood system. If possible, I recommend writing a sentence or two explaining what it means to have these variations, if that makes sense. I was a little unsure while reading what the difference between a variation and the cutting stages were as I felt that there was some cross-over between the two.
 * 4) I liked how you renamed the Potential Problems to "Advantages and Disadvantages." One thing to mention is that current section only includes the disadvantages, but I assume that is something you are working on. If possible, I recommend finding some sources to help back these claims up since the original user did not!

Following the Peer Review Guide:


 * 1) Lead
 * 2) The lead has been updated so that there is a lead. While there has been an introductory sentence added, it is a bit confusing, and I recommend adjusting it so that non-tree people (such as myself) are able to understand it better. The lead mentions some aspects of the paper but also includes information that is not further discusses. I recommend making sure that the lead is what one may consider a "summary" of what is discussed in the paper. I feel that the lead is a bit detailed in the sense that you describe shelterwood systems enough in the lead that I would be satisfied with just reading the lead. I recommend removing some details and further explaining them down below, but that is my personal opinion.
 * 3) Content
 * 4) The content added is absolutely relevant to the topic. You did an amazing job staying on topic and making sure not to stray. The content appears to be UTD, I recommend just adding sources in areas where I stated previously to make sure that your topic is verifiable. I also would love a section of "Advantages" where you describe how shelterwood cutting helps out the ecosystem, etc.
 * 5) Tone And Balance
 * 6) The content added is neutral. I feel that you are adding content to add content, not to incorporate your voice into this topic (which is a good thing). I am keeping this brief since you do a very good job staying neutral.
 * 7) References
 * 8) I love all of the references! So many, which is amazing. I do recommend adding references into the advantages/disadvantages section but that is it. I checked a few of them and they appeared to be up to date, relevant, and appear to be good sources.
 * 9) Organization
 * 10) The content could be improved in terms of clarity. I mentioned earlier that I have no understanding of this topic and found it to be a bit confusing. In terms of organization, I really liked how you sorted each of the types of variances and cuttings into their own section. The grammar could be improved but since this is a rough draft, I assume that will be addressed in the future!
 * 11) Images and Media
 * 12) I recommend adding images for each of the types of variances and cuttings. I believe that this will greatly help readers understand your descriptions and will help address your audience members who are more visually oriented (cough cough myself). The original article has some images, but I recommend adding lots more.