This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
By what criteria? this could be a significantly misleading list unless further qualification is made - considering the level of science in the RFA's for each state - this list is potentially a trainwreck unless further criteria are addressed please - SatuSuro 02:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, criteria and descriptions needs to be added, along with references and topic sections. This is a starting point for the article - more details and information to follow. Each article in the list contains information on its significant forest(s). Peter Campbell 07:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
arrgghhh please make sure whenever you say significant forests please realise there is a potential issue in a whole range of contexts - qualifying why and how should be an important aim in such work - cheers SatuSuro 07:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd be even more pesky and say maybe at least 2 or 3 qulifiers in the table if possible - maybe not now but a possible future addition SatuSuro 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
More content about forest coverage, trends and data across Australia
This article will be expanded to include more specific information about forest coverage, trends and data across Australia under additional headings. Feel free to add this type of information now if you have time. Peter Campbell 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)