Review of an article submitted to the conference

Article’s title

Geoinformation modeling of recreational resources of National Nature Park "Hutsulshchyna"

The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article?

Yes

Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished?

No

Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area?

Yes

Does the article contain new and not published results?

Yes

Was the article clearly written and easily understood?

Easily understood

Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research

Partially

The references are full and grounded?

Partially

How adequate was the writing and used terminology?

Rather adequate

Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article

Dear authors, the work is certainly very relevant and necessary for the development of tourism, taking into account the preservation of natural objects.
But there are some remarks and recommendations specifically regarding the presentation of the material. Notes and recommendations to the authors:
1. The abstract should contain clear and concise information about the material presented in the theses. It should also contain the main purpose. Unfortunately, the authors simply rewrote the same text as in the article introduction.
2. The clear purpose of the work is not formulated. The reader simply guesses from the read text what the purpose of scientific research is.
3. The conclusion does not provide recommendations. Although the section is called "Recommendations and conclusions".

I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have insignificant reservations, as outlined above.