User:Daphnembh/Columbia National Wildlife Area/NicoLaw2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Daphnembh, Sasonj, LSW0501, Omwongg and Tito tw13


 * 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The highlights of this rough draft is that it is rich in content, has reliable sources that have many different voices, it answers what the criteria of this assignment has asked for accurately and concisely. Don't change the organization of the article. Furthermore, the articles information is strong so don't change too much up as the it is clear and concise.

Considering what the current Columbia National Wildlife Area article has which is almost nothing, I have learned where this location is, the species, endangered and invasive species that live within and the different wetland areas.

This article touches upon more then 5 of the required topics.

I feel there are no gaps in this article as it addresses all of the topics.

There is no confusing writing, language, or poor sentence structure within the article. The only thing I would change is by taking out the "As" in the introduction sentence for the topic "Species". Also missing a period on the last sentence of the "Lead"

Organization in the article looks good, perfect use of the different headings and sub headings to really emphasize what topics you want to be seen more than others.

The tone of the article is good, follows all the Wikipedia guidelines and rules.

The article touches on many sources that enhanced the articles topics. For the last sentence in the "Riparian and Cottonwood Areas" Maybe just put the reference at the end of the sentence instead of the middle. Furthermore, citations should be before the period not after in the "Spatial Management" and "Habitat Management" paragraphs.

As stated previously the current article is very bare bones so nothing is repeated except for the migratory birds in the lead. However, the sandbox article has everything that the current article lacks as it addresses everything properly and is informative.

There are no issues of equity, inclusion and diversity.

Only changes that need to be made is some grammar and citation errors.

Overall, this article is very well done, great job!