User:Gabrielle.gagnon/Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park/Ishaan155 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gabrielle.gagnon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gabrielle.gagnon/Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park


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

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 1) Introduction to the article:

The lead of the article seems sufficient, with a good overview of the surroundings and limited introductory information about the park.

Very impressive variety of details regarding the boundaries, creation and primary history of the Marine park. It includes all the criteria of boundaries and size of the protected area as well as the explanation of how the boundaries of the park were decided and the goals that were initially set as well as the methods used to achieve them.

The material regarding species including plants and animals found in the park was more than satisfactory. It answered all questions regarding a possible endemic specie and at risk animals within the park.

The data regarding inclusion of First Nations and Indigenous peoples in the decision making process of the protected areas and managerial decision-making proceedings are notable and perfectly structured. The First Nation territories and sites still being part of the protected area is remarkable and very well written.

The summary of visitors, their annual data of visits as well as the activities open for them as well as other attractions was plentiful.

The historical effect of climate change have been mentioned but more information regarding current impacts can be more detailed than it is.

I believe, population trends of the species found in the park are missing in the article, they can be found here:

https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/publications/mammals-mammiferes/whalereview-revuebaleine/review-revue/beluga/page01-eng.html

The way of measurement of completed goals that were set was not available in the article, this would be a crucial part of the topic.

The information regarding historical use of the area, the harvesting activities or the extracted resources is missing, although the current activities are mentioned and sufficient.

According to me, the structure and positioning of the sections in the article are a bit misplaced. I believe, part 1 of the article, namely ecology is positioned fine, but part 3 that describes the management plan should be in position of part 2 and vice versa. This is because, human impacts and tourism are externally linked to the park, while ecology, species found and the framework of decisions and management and directly related to the park which should be the initial information.

Majority of the article was very clear and concise, but there were a few grammatical errors that I have enlisted below and the tone of the article is very balanced to the idea of the piece.

The sources listed do seem enough for the data and information of the article, and I have mentioned a few missing required points that need to be added.

2. Wildlife:

- Missing article "a" before the word "habitat" in the very first line.

- Incorrect preposition in this sentence, "The St. Lawrence Beluga whale and the harbour seal are the two marine mammal species that are residents to the park year-round." "To" should be changed to "of".

- Capitalisation error in "the north Atlantic right whale", should be "North".

- Should be a comma before "and" in this part of the sentence, "While each ecosystem differs in its temperature, salinity, sea floor and depth" as there are three or more words or clauses.

- Usage of "some" instead of "there are" would be more appropriate.

3. Upper and Lower Estuary:

- Freshwater is correctly written as "fresh water"

- Replace "ecological" with "environmental" as ecological doesn't fit the context in this sentence, "There are a lot of ecological factors".

4. Climate Change Impacts:

- 1990's and 1980's to be changed to 1990s and 1980s as the later is correct grammar.

- Missing article, "the" before ice in the phrase, "as ice melted".

5. Noise Pollution:

- "Is" to be changed to "are" in the first line under noise pollution. This is because the singular verb does not agree with the plural subject.

- Use "this is" instead of "which is".

- Missing punctuation in, "however there is". Should be a comma after however. This minor error has occurred in multiple places in the article.

6. Pollution:

- Missing article "the" before water in, "into water, and the river".

- Wrong form of verb lead in, "which has lead to". Should be led.

- "These side effects occurs in areas", correction would be occur.

- Gramatical error in "DNA damage", space needed.

To conclude, the article has been very well written with just a few minor mistakes. I would personally inspire the detailed data that has been shown in this article towards my own. The resources have been found from with deep research which usually is the most tiresome part of a written assignment.