User:Bkcoms/Trans Canada Trail/Cdmnt Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Brieklint


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bkcoms/Trans Canada Trail


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Trans Canada Trail

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead in Brieklint's sandbox is an updated version of the Lead on the current version of the article where Brieklint describes the difference between the Trans Canada Trail and The Great Trail in a concise and clear way, with an efficient introductory sentence describing the topic of the article. The Lead includes information that is not present on the current version article. The content added is relevant to the topic as it helps the readers understand the Great Trail and the clear connection with the Trans Canada Trail. The article doesn’t deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps, unless the main aim of the trail relates to this but has just not been put in the edit. The tone of the content is neutral and proper for Wikipedia in general.

There are some slight issues throughout the Lead that I would suggest could be looked into a bit more to make a great Lead:


 * Some citations are missing:


 * 1) When describing how many kilometers the trail was.
 * 2) Proving it is the "longest recreational, multi-use trail network in the world".
 * 3) Where the idea came from?
 * 4) Proving it has been "supported by donations from individuals, corporations, foundations, and all levels of government".


 * Citations all come from the same source, only one is from a Marketing magazine (which is not a reliable source as it is a newspaper website). Although the source could be considered reliable in the case of the official website of the Great Trail, it is not enough for certain aspects of the article. Maybe adding citations such as peer-reviewed articles or scholars talking about the pros and cons of the Great Trail, what it did to communities, to nature or what the main objective was, would have been good to include in the Lead as an introductory for what was to come in the rest of the article.


 * Although the description of what the Great Trail is good and concise, the main aim of this project is not clearly stated.


 * The content of the Lead does not state the article’s major sections, which would help guide the readers of the page (for example, that the Great Trail has succumb some controversy over the years).