User:Aidan1704/Broughton Archipelago Provincial Park/Dgeiss Peer Review

General info
User:Aidan1704
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Aidan1704/Broughton Archipelago Provincial Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Broughton Archipelago Provincial Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been updated to include what the park has to offer and it mentions how it has had a long history of use by First Nations groups.
 * Does the lead have an introductory sentence that consisely and clearly describes that articles topic? - Yes the introductory sentence mentions basic facts of the park but it could be more clear about what topics are being described.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the articles major sections? - Yes the lead talks about upcoming headings in its last sentence but it does not talk about all of the headings.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? - No
 * Is the lead concise or overly detailed? - The lead is concise.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes so far I see that you have added new citations to existing info on the original article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes many of the articles you've added into the article are fairly new as there are alot of articles from 2023 and even the earlier articles are still from the 2000's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Under the heading Human Impacts and the subheading noise pollution, may you clarify about how the noise pollution is specifically threatening Southern Resident Killer Whales because it prevents them from hunting their main source of prey which is Chinook Salmon thus, making them an endangered species as when the orcas have less opportunities to hunt salmon, the whales are less likely to reproduce and experience more deaths. You could also move the last sentence of the geography heading into the history heading because it talks about when the park was established rather than its geography.
 * Does the article deal with one of the Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes it does as you are addressing the Indigenous presence within the park prior to it being formed. This means that you acknowledge that there was history within the park before it became a provincial park. You also have an entire heading dedicated towards Indigenous presence in the Broughton Archipelago which acknowleges that the land is situated on the ancestral territories of the Kwakwa̱ka̱ʼwakw people.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes the content that is added is neutral as you explain the past, present and future of the park in a unbiased way that states facts about the park from a natural, geographical and humanistic lens.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepesented, or underrespresented? - I believe you could focous more on the perspective of the government/stakeholders and how they currently set to manage the ecological affairs of the park along with how they manage their relationship with the First Nations groups in the area. You could add and expand on what the government is doing to help maintain the ecosystem and/or what restrictions or laws are there for businesses if they were to buy to for economic and financial purposes?
 * Does the content added attempt to pursuade the reader in one position in favor of another? - No the content is relatively unbiased however, the human impacts heading does talk about several human activities that are harming animals in the area such as aquaculture and noise pollution along with how climate change is warming water temperatures that leads to an increase in parasites and pathogens.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Most of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information however, in the subheading of noise pollution, on the third sentence, where it says "the first acoustic harrasment device was implemented at the beginning of 1993" it has no citation even though the sentence mentions a historical date. Additionally, there should be a citation with the sentence, "In 1906, a cannery was built on the old site, which was subsequently destroyed by another landslide in 1933."
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes the content accurately reflects the information in the source articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - The sources are thorough and they reflect the available literature on the topic because alot of the sources come from stakeholders such as BC Parks and Scientific Bodies that study marine biology such as the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
 * Are the sources current - Yes most of the sources come from the 2020s and the earliest articles are from the 2000s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - It seems like most of the sources are written by authors outside of First Nations communities. For example there is a source called Perspectives for First Nations' Strategies Towards Local Marine Management that is written by James, Pepper on behalf of the government of Canada which may not fully represent the historically marginalized individuals of the First Nations.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? It seems like most of the sources come from academic journals that are already peer reviewed and there are no news coverage cited. However, there is one recent Canadian Geographic article from October, 2023 that talks about the co-existing populations of grizzly bears and salmon. Perhaps you could find a academic peer reviewed article that also talks about how grizzly bears are migrating to Vancouver Island where they normally would not naturally occur due to failed Salmon runs.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written? - The content added is well written because it is easy to read and understand the many factors that make Broughton Provincial Park what it is.
 * Is the content added well organized? - The content added is well organized as there is a clear, concise and brief introduction about the park which introduces its significance as the largest marine provincial park in British Columbia. It also briefly mentions the park's location and what the park has to offer. There are headings which begin with the geography of the park followed by ecology and then First Nations History which I think is a good order to put headings in the article because it shows the parks history and significance before the government laid interest on the land and put their own laws in place and created a provincial park.

Images and Media

There are no images in this draft.

For New Articles Only


 * Does the article meet wikipedia's Notability requirments? - Yes there are more than 2-3 sources in the article that are independent of the subject.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? - The list of sources is very exhaustive as there are journals, news articles and government policies that are all cited in the references to back up the wikipedia articles information.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles? - Yes there are detailed section headings and subheadings that are similar to other wikipedia articles.

Overall Impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? - Yes the article is more complete because it now gives readers an insight of the history of the park from different perspectives along with the current ecology of the park and how humans interact with its environment.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The content talks about unexpected ways humans are harming the ecosystem of a remote area such as increasing aquaculture and it also voices how current First Nations groups are banding together to help make important park decisions through the MTTC.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The content could talk more about the history of the park amongst the different First Nations Groups before European discovery caused the groups to travel and mix together. Additionally, I believe the content should be improved with information on sustainability.