User:Boxfishy/Christie Islet Migratory Bird Sanctuary/A.pachl Peer Review

General info
Boxfishy, Caitking, and Leeandjang1.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Boxfishy/Christie Islet Migratory Bird Sanctuary
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Christie Islet Migratory Bird Sanctuary

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead has been successfully updated to include the updated content added. The first sentence does clearly describes almost everything that the article is talking about in a clear concise way but could maybe add something more about the regulation section because it mostly references the location of this sanctuary.

Content
The content added is mostly relevant to the topic and all seems to be pretty up to date and within the last few years except the article from 2003/2004 but the information is relevant.

There is some content that does not belong from sources 5&6, my explanation for this is under the sources and references heading. There is definitely content missing, it only touches on three out of five things chosen from the list provided to us on what should be included in the article, these being information about the species that reside in this area, the goal of the protected area and a little bit on the issues that lead to the sanctuary.

I feel there should be information about indigenous perspectives on the refuge if possible. I also feel you should discuss specific species that are endemic to this area and that may being going extinct under the "species and habitat" section if that is possible.

Tone and Balance
The content added does not appear to have bias sources are accurately represented for the most part. Maybe discuss content around Indigenous involvement in the area to give more perspectives. The article does not persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources and References
The new information is backed up by mostly good secondary sources.

Source 5 could be cited a little better as in the citation there is no author, date published. This source also does not seem the most reliable and I would maybe use it as a base information but look at the references it provides because the direct references might be better.

Source 6 is a little bit off topic as it is a European website about seabirds and you are using it to reference North America birds which is likely not the same types of birds and is misleading. The source is not relevant other than it is discussing sea birds so I would see if you can find a better source for this part.

All of your links do work for the sources, there seems to be an error message on the date part for source 8.

Lastly in the third paragraph of geography I would maybe change the wording more of the second sentence because I found a very similar sentence in your 4th source about the UNESCO.

Organization
The content is clear and concise and easy to read, and no obvious spelling errors.

Does have some grammatical/formatting errors, there should be a period after the first sentence under the heading "regulations." I would also make sure the link to the sources is after the period as that seems to be standard for wikipedia and you have some sentences where it is after and some where it is before the period.

The sections are well broken down and have decent section headers, I think "regulation" could be changed to be "regulation protecting the sanctuary" or something that better links regulations to the material being discussed.

I also think some of the information in the Geography section should be moved into a new section that talks about why the sanctuary was created.

One thing I will also note is maybe try to write your listed items into sentences because I am not sure the listed points are the most professional looking.

Overall Impression
Overall the article has definitely improved the quality of the article and the article is more complete. Most of the content added is interesting and educational but some content is a little suspicious as to whether it is relevant to what you are trying to say. I think if you spent some time going through the sources listed in your 5th source, found a better source to replace the information from the 6th source, and rephrasing some of your sentences your article would be great! The writing was also really easy to read and flowed pretty well. The first Geography paragraph is really good but I think most of the information in the other two paragraphs under this heading should be moved under different headers. The regulation section was also very informative and I would not change much about the information just the minor grammatical errors and would change the listed format to sentences. I learned about what kinds of species are there, where it is located, why it was created and regulations in place. That being said I wanted to know more about Indigenous peoples involvement in this area and what species specifically are listed under Canadas species at risk act or are endangered. I think the article is a great start and the information given was very informative, with the proper adjustments this will be a great article.