User talk:Maya.hb/Forest cover

Peer Review
I think your article is well written. It's very descriptive and does a good job of providing examples, and it's heavily cited and refers to several hyperlinks. There are a few statistics that aren't directly cited/referenced throughout the article, so that's something to keep an eye out for. But, other than that, I think it looks good. Crystalm2392 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally agree! This is a great article and has great examples. I also think that you do a good job of including data in your writing and using sources. One thing you could add to this is some visuals and pictures. Graphs presenting your data or pictures showing different types of forests would make this article or engaging and interactive while reading it. Another thing you could possibly add is a brief mention of how forest cover is related to biodiversity and species richness, if at all. Overall, there's not much else to add to this Wikipedia page I think it's well-written and does a great job of relaying the information you collected.
 * Bpm83 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I also agree, this article is really solid. In your lead I would maybe add a bit about the ecological impacts mentioned later in the article. The rest is a solid introduction. The content is really important to the topic, though some statistics seem a bit out of date.Perhaps consider updating the statistics that are from before 2010. Your tone is neutral for most of the article, though "Forest cover can be increased by reforestation and afforestation efforts, but it is virtually impossible to restore the full range of ecological services once natural forests are converted to other land uses" this sentence may be able to be deemed as opinionated due to seeming to call restoration vital, which is true, but it may be better to use less strong language. The organization of your article is great, but the headers are a bit messy. Consider deleting the lead heading and fixing other headings to be equivalent sizes based on importance. Overall, I love your article, for the most part it comes off as extremely factual and reminds me of many other wiki articles I have read in the past!!

EmilyM04 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)