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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bubbles the fish, Kaescat, Laurenmac03, Osama Hakeem Qamar.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bubbles%20the%20fish/Scott_Islands_Marine_National_Wildlife_Area_?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead section of the article already has some elements included in the published article, while its brief, the sandbox draft provides with a lot more insight of what the article is about. The lead is concise but complete. While the lead is good, it could be reorganized to read about the marine wildlife area first, since its the first element that is talked about in the already published first lead sentence. The second relevant could be the geography.

Content:

The content added is relevant to the topic, equally balanced, giving a broad insight in the involving factors that the park has, and providing up to date information. Addressing information related to the species that can be found and including the species at risk act and proving information related to the predatory and invasive species. As well as talking about the history of the protected area and its roots, the article deals with Wikipedia's equality gaps by addressing the involvement of different groups, most importantly talking about the native indigenous people of the place. Finally addressing the current issues that global change and human activity that are threatening the National Wildlife area.

Tone and balance:

The article has a neutral and proffesional point of view, providing information without trying to convince the readers towards any specific position and serving as a source of information, as well as using adequate language. The article touches numerous viewpoints and acknowledges the importance of every member that has or is contributing to the wildlife area.

Sources and references:

Overall using reliable and good sources, while including some information from blogs, other sources appear to be in 'another template' or 'blocked'. The sources are current and are considered to be published by a wide range of authors, including information from different points of view and giving an opportunity to marginalized voices. Using scientific articles, peer review articles and official documents issued by reliable and important organizations.

Organization:

The content is concise and well written in order for readers to understand easily what is being communicated, breaking down every subtopic and reflecting the major points.