| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it has evolved into a comprehensive article over time, with a high number of sections and references. It seems near completion, but would benefit from peer reviews on the following aspects: articulation, length, redundancy, adequacy of categories/links/etc. Also suggestions of WikiProjects that could be interested in this article are much welcome.
Thank you, Sekundemal (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see a lot of good work has been done on this article. I am not an expert but I think the first section after the lead should be "Definition" as I could not understand whether the increase in forest area here in Turkey would be included or not. I think the definition section should explain how it is similar/different from regrowth of former forests and Farmer-managed natural regeneration. If what is happening here should be included then I think the lead is too negative. Also maquis here is generally considered a good thing ecologically as far as I know. The lead says "carbon sequestration effects of woody encroachment are highly context specific and still insufficiently researched" but as the Biden administration has been in power for a while now is there no new USA research? Surely soil carbon/soil moisture/ecology must be a priority research area for them isn't it? I suggest after a week or so you close this peer review and nominate the article for "good article". Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)