User talk:Ellrobso/sandbox

Comments on the Outline from Rosie

There's no information about the links you will create. e.g. to the pages on the different animals, to info about electromats (this page has a nice video: http://www.lampmanwildlifeservices.com/electromat) And what pages will link to your section?

I would like to have seen a few more links to your sources of information.

Will you have any photos or diagrams?

Water underpasses (culverts, streams) are interesting and important too. And I think there may be a recurring problem with bears walking along the train tracks and getting hit because they don't have the concept of 'getting out of the way'.

Rosieredfield (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ruth Rosie is right, you need to find more sources. It is a good idea to see if someone at parks Canada can give you information, but this isn't a good enough source for Wikipedia. You can't cite a conversation you had with someone, so it is important that you find some good reliable sources.

There is already a section on Wildlife crossings in Banff so you can't repeat what is already on wikipedia. You need to think about how you can incorporate this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing#Banff_National_Park I found this from just a quick search so I would advise you do a much more thorough search to make sure you are not repeating things that are already on Wikipedia before you get too stuck in. RuthVancouver (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments from Alan

Overall organization and content:

-The overall layout is well organized. However, subheading could be used to make the content presented more clearly. For example, subheading could be used for each species under Main species management so that people can view the name of the species and jump right into the section on the top of the page. Subheading could also be used to further define what kind of human activities affect wildlife in Banff National Park.

-The point of view of the page shows no bias and is genuinely neutral.

-Some of the information could be further analyzed and explain. For example, it was mentioned that management procedures expanded in the 1960s, but no specific information about how it was expanded and who were involved in the actions. In addition, explanation about how human activities affected the wildlife and to what extent it was affected was not presented. Furthermore, more species should be list under species management to enrich the contents.

-No external link provided.

-Sufficient references are presented, could find more references to make the page more reliable.

Suggestion from Ruth and Rosie addressed

-Create link to the animals

-One photo was added, but more should be added to make the whole page more easily understandable.

-More sources were added.

-The wildlife crossing section was linked to the Banff National Park page

Suggestion from Ruth and Rosie NOT addressed

-No link were created for electromats

-Information about water underpasses and train tracks not added.

Integration with other Wikipedia pages:

-Some of the names and concepts were linked to other Wikipedia page, but no specific section were created for links to related Wikipedia page.

-No link to this page on the other Wikipedia pages.

-I clicked on ‘what links here’ tool and nothing came up.

Standard Wikipedia page layout and organization:

-There is no ‘Lead’ summary section.

-appropriate section headings were presented.

-Table of contents was presented.

-References section was presented in an appropriate format.

Writing quality:

-Overall writing is grammatically correct, only small mistakes like “management procedures expanded in the 1960s and 1960s” were presented.

-All of the terms were well explained.

Illustrations:

-The page gives a brief overview of wildlife management in Banff National Park but the source and information were insufficient.

-Although it is not discussing the place, but it would be better to add the map of Banff National Park and add indication of the areas covered within the management project.

-Caption was presented on the graph and was informative, but more graph should be added to the page.

-In conclusion, more information and source and graph should be added to attribute to the page.

ML Chau123 (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Comments from Braydan

I think the first two sections, History and Main Species Management (better title might be Large Species Management), work well in the order presented within the Banff page in the Park Management section; however the third section, Reducing Human Contact, might be better suited at the end of the Banff page's Human Impact section. The point of view is neutral, great job on that. I could use more information on Reducing Human Contact, but be careful because some of what you have there is already covered in the Banff Human Impact section. I assume you will be integrating what the Banff page already has into the History section of your proposed page. This would work well. While you have references, you're lacking in external links (like the very bottom of the Banff page). The references are appropriate and from various sources, only issue is you reference Wiki's page on Elk (might be best to just link it). Pay attention to Ruth and Rosie's comments about water underpasses (seems like something worth putting in) and caution about repetition. There needs to be a lot more links to other pages. Most proper nouns you use should probably have a link, as well as any scientific concepts or park-specific jargon (recreational area, Elk Advisory Comittee, Buffaloberry bushes, aversive conditioning, etc). You should probably look into other park's pages and whether they have implemented these sorts of wildlife management techniques, thus having them link to this section. The layout seems to be appropriate for the section you're working within. Pay attention to grammar and sentence structure, especially in the History section. If no explanation for technical terms is given, at least link to it. It's difficult to think of any photos to add since the main Banff page has so many already used for everything, but pictures of the wildlife management techniques (such as an electric fence) could be implemented. Overall good section, worth adding for sure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braydan Pastucha (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review by Jesse Hino

Organization & Content:

- the content is in logical order: for the talk page but how are you going to integrate your page into the current page? where is which information going?

- the neutral point of view is well kept:

- there is some details or explanations missing but it might already be on the original page so just make sure that when you integrate it everything is covered and nothing is repeated.

- seems like you have good external links already on the current page, but it might be nice to add a couple of your own external links if possible.

- seem to have a good amount of references and a good use of primary and secondary sources.

-make sure you add some more pictures like Rosie said, and get some more sources as both has mentioned.

Integration with other Wikipedia pages:

- you have a good start on the external links on the original page already so just make sure you add them but maybe find a couple more for yourself

- seems to have a lot of links that are link to this page already so just make sure you keep those when transferring your section into the original page.

Standard Wikipedia layout and organization:

- there seems to be a lead in the original page so are you planning on keeping that as it is or changing it?

- the materials in proper sections

- table of content is present

- theres an info box on the original page, are you planning on changing it at all?

- good references, just make sure if the reference is already used on the original page that it doesnt duplicate the reference because the original page seems to have a lot!

Writing quality:

- There is some grammar errors, make sure to reread to fix up some of the grammar errors: make sure you put a period at the end of each sentence, have a space after commas, etc..

- technical terms that need explanation: if you dont want to explain the technical terms then at least link them to another page.

Illustrations:

- seems like there are a lot of pictures on the original page so seems fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johino (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from Siaw Yee Chew

Overall organization and content

Your flow is good and ideas are presented in a logical order. Your point of view is neutral in the way you have written your information. There are no external links provided at the bottom of your page, although there is a "See Also" section in the existing Banff National Park page. You could include appropriate external links that are relevant to your article in that section. For example, you could link to the websites for Elk Advisory Committee, Electromats. You have included some good government references. Try to include more citations within your article to back up the information you are stating (e.g. "Elk" and "Bear" sections could have more references listed after you state information from Parks Canada, or other sources). You can look up what your references have referenced in their articles and use relevant citations for your page. The suggestions from Ruth and Rosie have not been completely address. The links that Rosie mentioned are not in your article yet and you do not have a section explaining what pages will link to your article. You have included the wildlife crossing information in the last paragraph, which seems sufficient as you link an existing Wikipedia article for further information.

Integration with other Wikipedia pages

There are some links to existing Wikipedia pages, but you can certainly include more! For example, you could include links for Parks Canada, Lake Louise, Buffaloberry, electric fence, Trans-Canada Highway. Once you have transitioned your information to the existing Banff National Parks page, make sure to edit pages that your page will link to. You could link your page from Parks Canada, British Columbia, Banff.

Standard Wikipedia page layout and organization

When you integrate your information with the existing page, make sure you do not replicate what is already written. The existing page already has a "History" heading, so you could rename your history section to something along the lines of "Previous practices" because you are referring to what the park did before to manage wildlife, not so much about the history of the park itself. The material is organized well and the current subheadings would work with the existing page. You could consider making each animal section its own subheading and future editors could add more animals if they see fit. The "Bears" section is not consistent with the "Elk" and "Caribou" section. Just make sure you either start you sentence in the same line as the animal or you start it under the animal name. You have a Table of Contents, but there is no Infobox, but that might not be necessary because you are adding to an existing article. Your references section is titled and there are no duplications. You have a reference to an existing Wikipedia article, which should only be linked to your main article where you have typed in "Elk," so you do not need to reference that. However, you should probably find more external sources if you are referencing Wikipedia.

Writing quality

There are some minor grammatical errors that need proofreading and big words/terms that should be explained. You are missing a space between the comma and the next word ("Initially,the park..."). Include "population of wolves" so readers are not confused ("They represent a source of food for declining wolves..."). What does "...vegetation degradation issues..." mean? The quality of nutrients in the vegetation or the amount of vegetation is decreasing? What does the "...destabilization of biological interactions" mean? Explain habituation ("...eventual habituation of bears..."). Explain why the electromats are being used in one sentence, then say where the electromat(s) have been established. ("Electromats are also being used - an electromat has..."). What are buffaloberry bushes? You could explain how the park is "...reducing impacts of humans" by providing brief examples.

Illustrations

You should include more illustrations in your article. You have a nice image of a bear in the bear section, so add images for elk and caribou as well. Perhaps you could say what kind of bear species is in that picture (do the same for elk and caribou to make the page consistent). Try to use Wikimedia to find picture because you do not need to ask for permission to use those pictures.

Overall, nice job! Sychew (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie

Note: My comments here refer to the March 28 version, but your mark is based on the last March 8 version.

Organization: I would move 'Reducing wildlife-human contact' to a new 'Strategies' section. This could be placed right after History, or after describing the particular animals of concern. Strategies could have subsections on 'Ecosystem management' and 'Reducing wildlife-human contact'. This section should include a paragraph about highway fencing, since it's been a major strategy.

Writing: Mostly fine, but the Elk section contains short bits of gibberish. The sentence about bears and trains reads awkwardly - how about '...often because they are attracted to grain spills along the tracks.'?

History: The first sentence is not clear, and the reference to 'groups in power' is unclear. Try to better integrate this section's info with the info provided in the earlier section on the history of the park itself.

Rosieredfield (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ruth

My comments are also on the 28th version. Overall nice pag. Some editing and clarification will make it brilliant!

Editing: Rosie is right, there is some gibberish such as

“in Banff National ParkTashty represent"
“hisetwout to ductiefeir population”.  

Throughout the page you still need to do some editing. There are missing periods, misspellings, poor grammar etc. What is an elk handling facility? This needs a link or needs to be explained. “The state of grizzly bear populations in Banff is seen as a proxy for ecological integrity” but how did this influence bear management? As it is this sentence is out of place.

Some info you could add: Are there any laws or fines for people who feed bears or leave food out? How are they enforced? Do they work? Are there any plans to reintroduce Caribou into the park? Has there been any problems having wolves in the park or an controversy with their reintroduction?

Pictures: Siaw Yee is right, adding some more pictures of animals and/or warning and info signs is a good idea. You should be able to find more on wikimedia commons.

RuthVancouver (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)