User:DullestStimpy/Ottawa River timber trade/Davidbbell3 Peer Review

Hi DullestStimpy!

I really enjoyed reading your article. I'm from Renfrew County and my father and grandfather both work in the lumber/logging business!

The lead of your article is quite strong. It is very clear and neutral. Looking back to the original article you have added several lines which provide more detail and information, and you added a source which is good! The lead is concise and easy to read. To improve the structure of the lead, you could add a brief description about the article's major sections.

Overall your sense of clarity is good but there are a few places it can be improved. This is important because the clearer an article is, the easier it is to read. In your lead, you mention "squaring timber and sawing lumber" but give no explanation. The explanation doesn't belong in the lead, but it should be present further down the article. I know what it means but the average person does not! You also discuss sawmills and cribs with little description or accompanying images. By elaborating on these you can help your reader achieve a deeper understanding!

The structure of your draft needs improving. Structure helps the article flow. Even if each individual paragraph is concise and clear, the article can be confusing if it is out of order. For example, you have your lead paragraph, a paragraph about history, and then a paragraph about John Rudolphus Booth, a lumber baron. The next two paragraphs are about transporting logs. Then your final paragraph is about Philemon Wright, another lumber baron. It would make more sense to move the paragraph about Booth to come right before the paragraph on Wright. This way you aren't jumping back and forth between subtopics. You can also be more concise with your paragraphs to improve the flow of your article. You mention Philemon Wright in the second paragraph briefly, and then mention him again in great detail in the last paragraph. Also in this last paragraph, you mention Wright's contributions to the design of log slides, which would be more appropriately placed in the paragraph above which introduces the reader to log slides. Try to stick to one subtopic per paragraph and make one lead into the next. What you've written is good and it will come across more effectively with some rearranging!

As far as balanced coverage goes, it appears that you are off to a decent start. You have written about the history, logistics, and people involved in the timber trade. Moving forward, I would recommend you expand into topics such as the markets for timber, production, and modern legacy. These topics already exist in the original article but you can expand on them. Detailing how production occurred will tie in well with the point I made above about squaring and sawing lumber. Looking at the full article, lots can be done to expand the legacy section. How does the timber trade operate in the 21st century? How do people view the forestry industry? You briefly mention chute coulonge in your article, talking about the purpose it served in the timber trade. Now it is a big tourist attraction with a focus on the history of the timber trade. You can write about this! There are many other places in the Ottawa Valley you can discuss here too, such as the Bonnechere Museum (the Bonnechere river feeds into the Ottawa River and had 6 active chutes, some of which are now tourist attractions). This can also be connected to the history of logging in Algonquin Park. I suggest the Algonquin Forestry Authority (https://algonquinforestry.on.ca/algonquin-park-history/history-logging-history/) as a citation, and a good place to jump off and find more!

Your article does a good job addressing neutrality! The only places for improvement here are nit-picky. In paragraph 2 you use the word "we" in the sentence "Moving to the mid 1800’s we see that much of the pine in this once pristine area was now cut", which should be reworded to take the word "we" out, as wikipedia articles generally don't use this kind of vocabulary. I also noticed some quotation marks, In paragraph 4 you used quotations around "at the mouth of the tributary" which is unnecessary. You should always be paraphrasing your sources.

Your talk page was empty, so I sadly cannot provide any feedback there. Other than to say, use the talk page! It would have made my life easier as I could have identified where you made changes and why you felt they were necessary.

I already suggested some additional citations above, but as for your current citations you have a good variety. You seem to rely on number 1 more than the others so I would limit your usage of that source from here on out to cast a wider net of sources. I also noticed a couple locations where citations are needed. Here are a few spots I think you could use references:


 * Paragraph 1: "The trade in squared timber and later sawed lumber led to population growth and prosperity to communities in the Ottawa Valley, especially the city of Bytown (now Ottawa, the capital of Canada)."


 * Paragraph 1 "The industry lasted until around 1900 as both markets and supplies decreased."
 * Paragraph 2 "The industry came about following Napoleon's 1806 Continental Blockade in Europe causing the United Kingdom to require a new source for timber especially for its navy and shipbuilding. Later the U.K.'s application of gradually increasing preferential tariffs increased Canadian imports."
 * Paragraph 3: "He later built his own sawmill, was the lumber supplier for the Parliament buildings, and his name became widely known"

As a final, mostly irrelevant point, I found the phrasing "The Ottawa River Valley being conveniently located with access via the St. Lawrence River" to be strange. Maybe its just me, but as someone from the valley, I've never heard it called the Ottawa River Valley. Totally up to you if you want to change it or not, but to me it just sounds odd! For a first draft this is really great, I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot! I hope you find this helpful!

David

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)