User:Daphnembh/Columbia National Wildlife Area/Djeetend Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Columbia National Wildlife Area

username - Daphnembh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Daphnembh/Columbia National Wildlife Area - Wikipedia
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daphnembh/Columbia_National_Wildlife_Area?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
Positive Feedback 1.80/2 - All sections of the article are written well and clearly and follow a good pattern, most aspects from the article should be included into the final article as they give plenty of clear information on the Columbia national wildlife area. they introduce the area, why its protected, the animals that are endangered and what caused that as well as how the area is managed and the threats that challenge the management.

Engagement 1/1 - As a reviewer i learned about the area itself, why it needs protection, what endangered species are found in the Columbia national wildlife area and what threats the area still continues to face.

Content part 1 1/1 - i think 5 points are made in this article from the different topics.

Content part 2 0.6/1 - one area that would need some improvement would be combining (Species at Risk and Invasive Species) and (Natural Habitat Threats and Endangered Species) into one as the information there can be under one heading to avoid repetition. need some more information on some of the management being done, like when talking about managing invasive species from coming into the protected are, how can they be managed?

Clarity 0.9/1 - under one heading on species the information says "there are 10 species listed on the schedule 1 of SARA" while the other one has" 6 recorded species listed on Schedule 1 of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA)" so needs to be more accurately recorded.

Structure 0.9/1 - the structure of the article is mostly good, the headings and subheadings are clear to follow, except where it goes from species to climate change, after that species is repeated it again, so could be moved before climate change. Easy to follow the article as paragraphs and writing is structured well.

Tone 1/1 - the material is pretty neutral, couldn't see any bias towards one view.

Sources 0.8/1 - the sources are pretty good, could do with a few peer-reviewed articles but most of the information is from official websites so should be good, some sources are repeated in the reference page so could be edited out. Also, in some cases in the paragraphs some of the information is missing in-text cites where they might be needed.

Balance 1/1 - the draft does address the most important and notable aspects of the topic.

Whose voice is heard 0.8/1 - even though it might be hard finding relevant sources and information on first nations people, there should be some mention of whether they were any indigenous people, some history on them and how they have been affected since the area has become protected.

Civility of review 1/1 - overall the writing is well done.