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

General info
Aidan1704, Zlillico, Reade 113, Jules 356
 * 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
The strong aspects I appreciate about the article include:


 * The lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections to provide a brief overview for the reader.
 * Most of the content is concise with details and covers important aspects of topics, giving the reader enough information to understand the topic.
 * A balanced amount of information is written with the importance of the aspects, which won’t be overly described and make the draft a mess.
 * The tone is not biased; readers get accurate information.
 * Enough sources are being used to present the precision of the data used.

While reading the draft, I understood the content easily because most of the wording was clear. The article's tone is professional and neutral, with no bias towards a position, which facilitates my knowing the facts of the topic.

After engaging with this review, I learned to write a clear and concise paragraph that includes major points, which will make it easy for me and other readers to read and understand the topic.

The draft content currently includes seven of the following topics:


 * How the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided,
 * Information about what species can be found in the protected area,
 * Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends,
 * Description of the issues/goals that led to the creation of the protected area,
 * Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area,
 * Historical use of the now-protected area: what resources were harvested or extracted there (biological resources like fish, animals, plants, or timber; physical resources like rock or oil), how much, when, and by who? How did this affect the formation of the protected area?
 * How climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the protected area

Areas (i.e., content, sentences, and structures) that I suggest being improved include:


 * The established date of the park can be removed from the geography section.
 * better-organized structure. To be clearer, the sub-section of species at risk can be added under the ecology section.
 * In the ecology section, “Including but not limited to Many different species...", the “m” of “many” should be in lowercase.
 * Under the human impacts section - aquaculture, “In the between the network of islands…” is unclear.
 * Missing Bibliography

By improving clarity and accuracy, the article enables readers to get the message easily.

Besides, I want to know more about the general climate of the protected area and the affection to the ecology, the viewpoints of the First Nations, and nearby communities towards the establishment and management of the protected area. In addition, I would like to know more about the management approaches of the area and how this area is being managed or protected. Who is in charge of the protection? You might also consider adding some maps or images to provide visual information to readers, like the shape and distribution of the protected area.

There are enough sources for the article, and most of them are reliable sources, such as books and journal articles. There is one news article that is considered a poor source; you might need to consider avoiding it as a source. Furthermore, in 5, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 21 referencse, errors like “ : Check date values in: ” needed to be fixed.

Overall, this is a good draft, and I can learn from you by reading it. There are a few areas that need to be adjusted or added to make it a better Wikipedia article. I appreciate your effort and hope my review is helpful for your article.