User:Aidan1704/Broughton Archipelago Provincial Park/Uncommongrackle 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
Lead: This lead has been updated with new information about the park, such as location, human use, and ecosystem values. The language used is clear and concise, easy to understand. I am not sure if all three sentences need to be cited since they use the same source — maybe just one is enough.

Content: The topics added to the article are relevant and address current points about the park. They cover wide range of interesting things, such as history, wildlife, human use, and Indigenous presence, which is often underepresented in media. There was information on Indigenous history and involvement with the management of the area, though some parts are still incomplete. The topic of climate change was also discussed, as well as information about the conservation goals of the protected area and the species at risk that live in it. The article was updated with relevant links as well. I did notice some spots where content was missing, but there were notes stating that there was more to come in a future edit :)

Tone and Balance: The article does a good job of representing many viewpoints. Overall, the tone is neutral when discussing geography, wildlife, and tourism. I would suggest that in some areas, the diction or choice of words may need revision to seem less informal/more neutral, even though the facts stated are true. For example, the sentence "The problem is that these natural resources, especially salmon stocks, were viewed as expendable and an economic opportunity for settlers" could be reworked like "Settlers viewed [the region's] natural resources as expendable and economic opportunities, especially the salmon stocks". Some terms or phrases like "village situation" might confuse readers if they are not familiar with English. The article is well balanced and contains a range of information that is evenly distributed amongst topics, and I think the information is presented in a neutral, civil manner.

Sources and References: The content is backed by an impressive list of sources! Overall, they are reputable sources like journals or management plans. I did notice one source about the grizzly bear that seemed to be written more like a blog article with no listed references, but a topic like that probably has a scientific study easily available somewhere. The sources come from a wide timeline, but this is to be expected for historical sources and a few studies which have dates that are relevant to the article. However, I would have like to see more recent studies being cited for some of the more research dependent topics, such as the albalones and human impact. There might be some sources with formating issues in the references section, due to the red error text. I noticed that some in-text citations were typed in the middle of sentences or before periods; they should go at the end of sentences after the period.

Organization: The headings and topics within were organized very well. Some paragraphs that could be better structured or split into more than one paragraph, such as the ones under Ecology. There are a couple grammatical errors in the writing itself, and in numerous instances there are sentence transitions that might be better left out to improve the flow and ease of reading.

Overall, I think this article was massively improved from its previous state! I learned a lot about the wildlife species protected by this area and the Indigenous history behind it. There are some things to improve on, but well done! :)