User:Bubbles the fish/Scott Islands Marine National Wildlife Area /Avaryvinciguerra Peer Review

sGeneral info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bubbles the fish


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bubbles the fish/Scott Islands Marine National Wildlife Area


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Scott Islands Marine National Wildlife Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
Article has no lead but I'm sure this will be added in final article. The content added is relevant and somewhat up to date. A few sources are from a couple of years ago but is still important content. At least 5 topics from rubric are included in article but I would like to see more content in the indigenous section and their connections to the land if possible. The geography section could be expanded more with 1 or two sentences about the weather and/or climate of the islands as it is not mentioned. The content is pretty easy to read which is good! Nothing to be confused about. I appreciated the added definitions for words that may not be familiar to everyone like "islets" for example. The tone of this article is very neutral and simply states facts rather than opinions on the facts presented. The content and sections are well organized and broken up with multiple subheadings provided. There are a few grammar mistakes I have noticed, needs some proof reading. There are no images provided, hopefully some are added in. There are a lot of sources cited with almost every sentence ending in a citation which is good. Sources look to be very reliable although, I do not believe any are from an indigenous perspective.They are mostly government issued and an indigenous perspective could really elevate the indigenous peoples of Scott islands section. Overall the article looks way more complete than it did before with important topics being mentioned. All I would say is look to see where content could be expanded and proof read the article.