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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Daphnembh


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Daphnembh/Columbia National Wildlife Area - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Columbia National Wildlife Area - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

//Peer Review//
// To me this was a big strength of the article://

It conveys great general knowledge of a big area. → that gives you a well-rounded basic knowledge especially compared to the previous page

// I learned about://

Riparian habitats and cottonwood, it’s great to get some specifics.

I also learned about the threats and responses in management- great detail here as well-

// The 5 Topics represented best://

boundaries/size //

Great lead, establishing the area’s situation and habitats.

Information on species//

There is a lot of information on different species covered.

SAR,Pop trends//

Similarly to the information on species, a lot of information is given on endangered species

Issues goals&creation //

Beautifully summarized the initial reasons and the goals aimed for by the area’s creation.

climate effects//

There’s a nice segment on climate change and possible predictions, and it’s summarized well.

//Improvement//

-language //

As for the language, most of the article is beautifully written, there are a few grammatical errors and formatting glitches but concerning the material itself there was one thing that stood out to me: “NWA” is used a lot, in some places giving me as the reader a cluttered feel and confusing me as well.

-accuracy//

Just a small thing I thought was mentioning what kind of lists we are talking about or linking to another wikipedia page, since we’re writing for people who might not know what just “red-listed” means.

-structure //

There seems to be a little structural issue with the SAR/endangered species/invasive species/ Threats etc so I would recommend putting related subjects together in a way that makes a little more sense, for example: going from “Invasive species //Endangered and SAR//Invasive species again” to→ species(and SAR), Habitat, Threats+ management

Honestly I am impressed with the amount of detail that went into this, and a little structural difficulty is something I’d struggle with as well.

Again, the language used reads nicely and professionally, I’m not picking up on bias or anything going against wiki-guidelines.

sources//

The sources check out and, except for maybe a reduction in sentences in general, are placed pretty well.

// Is this article balanced?//

As of now the article seems a little heavy on the species/habitat side, maybe that’s just due to the structure though! So restructuring and compressing the information into a little more bite-sized pieces might help.

// The articles tone//

is great. It’s like any other good wikipedia article, in my opinion.