📊 Intact Forest Landscapes #2625
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ | |||
| steps: | |||
| # Intact Forest Landscapes | |||
| data://meadow/forests/2024-05-08/ifl: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be more useful to spell out this acronym, since there are many IFL things, and this one is not particularly well known (at least to me). But if it's too much hassle, you can leave it as-is.
| title: Intact Forest Landscapes Area | ||
| unit: square kilometers | ||
| short_unit: km² | ||
| description_short: Area of [intact forest landscapes](#dod:intact-forest-landscapes). Intact forest landscapes are vast, continuous natural ecosystems without significant human disturbance or fragmentation. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I find it a little odd that you have a DoD as well as an explicit explanation. Wouldn't it be enough to simply say:
(A) "Area of intact forest landscapes."
or:
(B) "Area of intact forest landscapes, which are vast, continuous natural ecosystems without significant human disturbance or fragmentation."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am a little unsure about this, my understanding was that in cases where you can it is best to include a short explanation in the subtitle alongside a DoD. Mainly so that when users screenshot rather than download the chart, as is often the case, a brief explanation of the term is still on the chart.
In this case, the DoD goes more in-depth than the information captured in the description_short.
|
Regarding the footer, the ideal solution for us and our users would be to use |
Hey @pabloarosado!
For this PR I am not sure how to handle the source. The author (Potapov) asked that we cite it as Potapov et al. (2017) and reference the paper that sets out the dataset. However, the dataset has been updated since, in 2021. Currently the source footer shows as
Potapov et al. (2017) (2021), which is not ideal.What do you think is the best solution here?
Potapov et al. (2017), which is what the author requested orPotapov et al. (2021)which is perhaps closer to what the dataset reference should be.