User:Daphnembh/Columbia National Wildlife Area/Antony Dayton Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Daphnembh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daphnembh/Columbia_National_Wildlife_Area?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Columbia National Wildlife Area
 * Columbia National Wildlife Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
There is very good quantitative information in sections like geography/topography, and delivery of the information in that section is clear and concise. This group was able to find a considerable amount of information on this specific park which hopefully means they found many credible sources with extensive detailed information.

I was most interested in learning about natural habitat threats and endangered species as it is always a surprise how many different species there are within a relatively small area like this wildlife park.

There is good information about which species, endangered or of concern, reside within the park. There was numerous mentions of ATV and motorized vehicles being a disturbance to the park. Content regarding encroachment on the park from several industries like logging and mining was well covered, and links were made to how these encroachments may affect the park in the long run. In addition to the encroachment of industry there was further information on how climate change may affect ecology within this area. There was minimal coverage on First Nations history and First Nations involvement within the National Wildlife Area.

When using abbreviations, make sure you state what the abbreviation is in full terms with the abbreviation following in brackets. After the abbreviation has been used in full terms then you can use the abbreviation. For example: National Wildlife Area (NWA).

For concise writing and clarity make sure “Its” and “they” are replaced with be specific items or places you are referencing. This helps with following along as there is such a load of information on these Wikipedia pages.

In the Habitat Management section, when you are talking about management plans, make sure you differentiate which management plans you are talking about. Extra wording like “many sources have noted” is unnecessary, cite the facts instead.

There appears to be good paragraph structure and the tone is relatively neutral with no opinions being raised.

I believe our group struggled a bit with balance as we didn't entirely work together on delivery of information. It appears this group also repeats some information which can be cut out in a final draft.

All the sources appear to be from journals or government websites. I would concur that these are credible sources.