User:BC604/Golden Ears Provincial Park/Clamatochowder Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Users Ishaan155, Maggiecross13, Mca278, Rainsoaked33, BC604


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BC604/Golden Ears Provincial Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Golden Ears Provincial Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Golden Ears Provincial Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Positive Feedback:  I liked the interesting subject headings the group chose, and how the subheadings organized the content further - especially under the "First Nations Territory" and "Vegetation in the Park" topics. As the reader, it makes it easier to know what material is covered in the article and helps find relevant information quickly. I also found this article much more interesting to read than the existing published one - the industry section was cool! I had no idea there was a legendary lost mine. I love this park and reading this article made me excited to go visit it again with new appreciation.

 Content Review: 

Bolded points were covered in article. More than 5 points were covered, nice!

• How the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided

• Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)

• Information about any species that are endemic

• Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available

• Description of the issues/goals that led to the creation of the protected area

• Whether the goals that led to the creation of the protected area are being met, and how this is being measured

• Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area

• Whether First Nations were included in the process creating the protected area, or whether they supported the creation of the protected area

• Whether First Nations are currently included in management decision making processes for the protected area, and either way, what their priorities are for the management of and access to the area

• The number of visitors to the protected area, and what they do there

• '''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

 Content Review Pt. II 

- The first section (Creation and First Habitants) addressing how the park was created could be expanded on - e.g. how the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided or more of the history behind its creation.

- Also under "Creation and First Habitants", suggestion to change the use of "First Nation people" to peoples (plural) as there are many different Nations within B.C. and are not one homogenous people. I also suggest changing "Habitants" to "Inhabitants".

- Under "Industry in Golden Ears Park" the discussion time-jumps and is not organized chronologically

- The current article discusses camping and hiking in the park - these are two very relevant activities for people who go to Golden Ears Provincial Park, suggestion to mention this still in the new article.

- Suggestion to discuss geography of park/major features and wildlife - feels missing!

 Clarity: 

Overall, the article is clear. However, the first two sections "Creation and First Habitants" and "Species at Risk" are awkwardly worded. For example, every sentence in the "Species at Risk" paragraph ends with 'Golden Ears Park' or mentions it. It's a short paragraph and so it may sound repetitive to the reader. In the "Species at Risk" paragraph, need to add the word "species" after "1824 Blue listed" sentence. The "Vegetation in the Park" section is also long and quite detailed - could be more concise. The first sentence under "Endemic Species" subheading is a bit broad and doesn't focus specifically on Golden Ears Park.

 Structure 

Good structure, especially under "First Nations Territory" paragraph. "Species at Risk" paragraph feels like it should be anchored under a broader discussion about the park Wildlife, especially if a wildlife management plan and plant life is discussed in detail throughout the article.

 Tone 

Good neutral tone throughout article overall, informative and professional. I would edit the last couple sentences under "Invasive Species" and reword them, e.g. "they may serve more good than evil" is not a neutral phrase.

 Sources 

Good use of sources to back up statements when needed. Good sources: not all are academic/governmental but are still reputable and I think appropriate to have. (e.g. History channel episode)

 Balance 

I found the "Vegetation in the Park" section long for a Wiki article, suggestion to edit it down and to include an additional topic heading such as geography and wildlife to round out the article more and make it more comprehensive.

 Voice 

Good balance of perspective by acknowledging the ancestral lands of the park and its original stewards. Maybe if there is some information regarding an important Indigenous oral history of the park area that can be cited from an Elder and Nation that would be a valuable perspective to include as well!