User:Fukhunglie/Stein Valley Nlaka'pamux Heritage Park/KarateCats Peer Review

General info
Whose work are you reviewing?

Fukhunglie, SZ905, Hf04, AnthonyTrasolini

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Fukhunglie/Stein Valley Nlaka'pamux Heritage ParkLinks to an external site.

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Stein Valley Nlaka'pamux Heritage ParkLinks to an external site.

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.)

I like the overall structure of the article and I think it is very valuable that you added the relevant historical information about the First Nations. It is very important that you were able to present the side of the First Peoples in a neutral tone. However, it is essential that when you write about First Peoples, Indigenous, First Nations etc., you capitalize the words. It is considered disrespectful not to do so and offends First Peoples, as it continues the colonial trend of not considering them equal nations. This is a quote from Grammarly: “You should capitalize the names of countries, nationalities, and languages because they are proper nouns—English nouns that are always capitalized.” This includes Native North Americans.

I found it very interesting that in this park, unlike the one I’m writing about, there is documentation and close collaboration with the First Nations regarding the park management. This was new information, as I was not aware that collaboration of this type existed anywhere in BC.

It is also really nice that you included some physical geography information. If you expand on it and make a connection to the plant and animal life, it could be a really strong section. Geography has a lot of influence on the ecology of a location and can bring the connection that will help you explain which living organisms live there.

The article looks to be on track with meeting the goal of addressing 5 topics, including the following:


 * Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)
 * Description of the issues/goals that led to the creation of the protected area
 * Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area
 * Whether First Nations were included in the process creating the protected area, or whether they supported the creation of the protected area
 * Whether First Nations are currently included in management decisionmaking processes for the protected area, and either way, what their priorities are for the management of and access to the area

Some more specifics:
(This part is structured in the following way: first, all comments on the criteria followed by a key outcome or recommended action. I hope this structure will be the most convenient and easy to follow)

Lead

The lead section seems too brief, which also applies to the introductory sentence as it only mentions the date of park creation and its name. The lead doesn’t really mention anything substantial on the park's history and culture, geography, ecology or park management. On the positive, it only includes information from the article without any extra information.


 * It would benefit the lead to expand it a little, but only slightly

Content

The content is mostly well chosen and relevant, though I’m not sure how relevant the Recreation section is in general for this project. In any case in my opinion it should not be given three large paragraphs. On the other hand, it would benefit the article to expand the geography part to possibly include the climate and connect it to the vegetation and plant life in the park. Overall content appears up-to-date except the Park Management section, which is missing a source, and it is unclear what the date is. This article addresses Wikipedia equity gaps by talking about the First Nations, their history and their part in taking care of the park.


 * Consider adding more information on the park management and a reference; I added a link to a source you might find helpful (see comment on sources and references). Also, I would love to learn more about the geography of the park.

Tone and Balance

This is one of the article's strongest points as it appears very balanced, professional and neutral. This includes talking neutrally about the First Peoples, which I personally learned from reading this article and will take away to adjust my own writing, which I now see is partially biased. This part of the criteria is well met by this article as there are no overtly biased positions and representation is balanced. There are no obvious attempts to persuade the reader towards any viewpoint.


 * I don’t think anything needs to be changed regarding this section.

Sources and References[edit]

Good: All sources are current to the information they are discussing, with some older sources in the history section. All links work. Sources are of high quality, mostly academic or government-issued.

Some issues:


 * 1) This whole block is missing a source: “When the park was first established the two groups had signed an agreement to work together to manage the park. The agreement meant they will share the responsibilities of operating, managing and planning of the park. The cooperative management agreement addresses that it will not undermine the aboriginal rights and title. Furthermore members of the Lytton First Nations may continue to extract resources from the park for traditional ceremonial or social activities.

The co-management of the park is overlooked by a management board which consists of three representatives from the BC Government and three representatives from the Lytton First Nations.”


 * 1) Links for reference 1 lead to the same page as the link for reference 2.
 * 2) I couldn’t check if sources 3, 5 and 7 are reflected accurately as they are not available for free. The other sources were represented well.

Additional sources suggestions:


 * 1) Have you considered this government-issued advisory for some additional information and maps/images?

https://nrs.objectstore.gov.bc.ca/kuwyyf/stein_valley_trail_report_00191d3c61.pdfLinks to an external site.


 * 1) Also, this thesis from UVIC, might help add information on the park management section

http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/6150/Wilson_Madeline_MA_2015.pdfLinks to an external site.


 * Consider adding a source to the park management section, and possibly add more information to the section using the sources I suggested. Take a look and either combine sources 1 and 2 if they are the same or correct the link if they were supposed to be different.

Organization

The overall text structure is clear, and it is easy to read with a few exceptions. This is something that I really liked about this article.

Here are some things that could be improved:


 * 1) This sentence seems to be missing a logical connection or context: “However, the plan to log the Stein was eventually turned into a plan to conserve the Watershed by transforming it into a heritage park.” How? Why? By whom?
 * 2) The south-facing slopes on lower valley is relatively drier and warmer compared to the north-facing slopes because it is located in the rain shadowLinks to an external site. of the Coast MountainsLinks to an external site.. Here the word “slopes” is in plural so it should either be slope is or slopes are.
 * 3) The word Watershed does not appear to require capitalization, but if you think in the context it does, then it should be capitalized throughout the text.
 * 4) The part that said: intended on logging would be better phrased as intended to log.
 * 5) Trail head should be written as one word - trailhead
 * 6) Try rewriting Being located in alpine areas, weather can change quickly to be clearer for example: The weather in the park can change quickly due to its alpine location.
 * 7) It would be better to change will to would here: The agreement meant they will share the responsibilities of operating.

I like the content organization with well-defined sections. The information is grouped into coherent and logical paragraphs. At the same time, the History and Culture section is not in chronological order and would benefit from being slightly reorganised in a time sequence.


 * Take a look at the suggested corrections to see which ones are relevant. Consider re-ordering the History and Culture section to maintain a more chronological order.

Images and Media

There are no images added, so I cannot comment on their relevance or quality.


 * Consider adding maps or images. It can significantly improve the impression that a reader gets from your article.

Overall I really like the article; it was fun to read and review