User:Zr-gpp-1/Deforestation in Haiti/Safabsr Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Zr-gpp-1)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Zr-gpp-1/Deforestation in Haiti


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Deforestation in Haiti

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:

-Current lead: "Animal species, forests, biodiversity are facing mass extinction in Haiti due to deforestation.  Haiti has been the loss of 99 percent of its virgin forest with some experts indicating that all primary forests will be deforested by 2035 if deforestation continues at the current rate" - wording in the second sentence is kinda awkward and stating a fact rather than an overview of the contributions; try rewording to give a better overall idea of the contributions

- For the most part, the lead effectively summarizes the article body! just remember to include that you'll also be discussing attempted solutions to this issue (Haiti National Trust/failed state-provisioning) in the final paragraph to close off the lead completely. (possibly under section "environmental efforts")

- Also possibly include the remaining hotspots in your lead

-Try reducing the repetition of the word "deforest/deforestation" in the lead to keep it concise and not repetitive

Content:

- the content added is relevant to the article. numerous credible sources are used to support the contributions, which include detailed information on the specific species that have been impacted by this deforestation. The details are informative yet concise, properly maintaining the direct nature of the article.

- it might be beneficial to somehow connect the endangered species included in the first paragraph with the remaining hotspots mentioned in the second paragraph. Possibly explain how endangered species have been impacted (positively or negatively) by the restoration effort.

- if possible, dissect or further explain the failed conservation efforts attempted by the government (can be a possibly be a sector debate)

- try rewording the last sentence in the second paragraph of contributions that discusses the sector debate brought up by zack fitzner; you can restate this as a sentence like, "However, *insert credentials* Zack Fitzner critiques this approach, pointing out that..."

- "They were also able to confirm this through the observations the scientists made on the ground." - maybe briefly explain the observations that were made on the ground in one sentence to give readers a better understanding and link a source supporting this

- "And although climate change catastrophes, hunting, and disease are also big threats to many species, the consensus is that the primary threat is deforestation."- While climate-change catastrophes, hunting, and disease are deemed significant threats to these species, the dominant consensus states that the primary threat remains deforestation.

-"It has been found that the place where flora and fauna is surviving is at the mountaintops of Haiti, where it is harder for tree cutting to happen since it is high up in the mountains and difficult to access" - Reword this to include who claimed that remaining flora and fauna exists in the mountain tops. - possible reword ("Experts have found that surviving flora and fauna remain at the mountaintops of the island, as its harder to access and cut trees at such a high altitude.

Organization:

- what section will these contributions go under? or are you adding an entirely new section? i think the majority of the first paragraph can be weaved into the first section of "dynamics and impact" and "estimates of forest loss," although make sure to double check that you aren't repeating information that was already mentioned in the article (i made this mistake on mine and it just complicated the article more than needed)

- overall, the sandbox organization is a bit confusing, so just make sure the information goes under their respective sections to ensure proper effectiveness

Tone and Balance:

- Overall, the tone is neutral and balanced, maintaining Wikipedia's standards of neutrality within each article. Each side's perspective is properly conveyed.

Sources:

- You have a good number of scholarly sources included and integrated within your contributions. However, I do think it would be beneficial if you gave the credential or a little summary of where the source is from or the credentials of thee author if you are citing a specific evidence or study to increase impact and credibility. Overall:

Overall, the content of your contributions are very informative and concise, maintaining the integrity of the article while being informative and effective. The organization can be improved by relocating sentences within the paragraphs to their respective sections within the article. You could also possibly add a sector debate section or resolution section