Peer review for FSC logging
Under the heading Justifications: The second sentence under the heading Air starts with the word Chemicals which doesn't sound right.
Under conclusions: The first sentence should read, ...California logging laws are more stringent.
On the comparison table, water is mispelled as well as the word considerations under total considerations
citations aren't put on page correctly.
There should be some seperation between points under the justification portion of the article (Hyphen, Space, colon, etc.).
There should also be some editing done to clarify the points made under the justification section. Some of the points don't make sense in their current format, as well as there being a few grammatical errors (missing commas, word usage, and word positioning).
The chart should have some sort of legend or explanation as to what data it is showing. Right now it is somewhat confusing, as there is no explanation attached to it, such as how number values were assigned or even what they are for.
Water is mispelled on the chart.
The conclusion should be re-written, and there shouldn't be any all caps. That implies yelling or aggitation. Also, there should be two commas, one on either side of the Compliance with Laws statement.
Citations should be completed and referenced as footnotes.
The title should be all caps, Comparison of California Logging Laws and FSC Standards. All words other than articles should be capitalized in titles.
First Secrtion requires more information. Explain what FSC is don't just link to it.
Start a discussion about Comparison of California logging laws and FSC standards
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Appropedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Comparison of California logging laws and FSC standards.
