User:GreysonZed/Desolation Sound Marine Provincial Park/Reade 113 Peer Review

General info
GreysonZed (Desolation Sound Marine Provincial Park)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:GreysonZed/Desolation Sound Marine Provincial Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Desolation Sound Marine Provincial Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall Impressions

The Wikipedia article covering the Desolation Sound Marine Park is a good article overall. Areas where the article succeeds are in its presentation of information in a neutral tone and the breadth and relevance of its content. The presentation of information in a neutral manner is well done because the article refrains from putting any opinion of the authors into the article and instead simply states information that was found in the sources. The breadth and relevance of information is well done as well because it offers detailed information on ecology, First Nations, and the history of the park in addition to a very detailed section on management aspects. From reading the article, I learned about the park as a whole and gained detailed information in many realms that I could compare and contrast to the park for which I am writing an article. The information I found useful to compare to the park I am writing about surrounded topics such as management strategies, ecology of the area, and how Indigenous people are involved in the park's processes.

There are some areas of the article that could benefit from minor fixes. Specifically, the organization of the article including grammar, spelling and formatting conformity can be reviewed along with some source choices. Despite this, the article is not lacking in every department and the changes that may need to be made are not massive ones that will require a large amount of effort. The article is close to being finished and is, up to this point, an example of quality, well-researched work.

The article addresses many of the topics set out in the assignment guidelines. 5 specific areas met are as follows:


 * Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)
 * Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available
 * Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area
 * Historical use of the now-protected area: what resources were harvested or extracted there (biological resources like fish, animals, plants, or timber; physical resources like rock or oil), how much, when, and by who? How did this affect the formation of 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

Content

In overall terms, the content added to the article is good. All the content included in the article is relevant to the topic, up to date, and there is no content that seems to be missing or out of place. In addition, the content addresses one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps by covering a large amount of information on Indigenous involvement in the park.

Tone and Balance

The article is presented in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and does not try to convince the reader of any perspectives or opinions.

Lead

The lead has been updated from the original to include the information added to the article. On this note, however, the lead does not include a brief description or a prelude to the management section. I think that the lead would benefit from a sentence or two mentioning how the management plan is a part of the park's administration so that readers know that management will be covered in more detail later in the article. Despite this, the lead section is concise and to the point. It provides a good overview of the topic, and prepares the reader for the rest of the article.

Organization

The organization of the article is good on the whole. There are a few spelling and grammar errors in a couple places. Additionally, there are some inconsistencies in heading formatting. For instance, to make the article more uniform, the subheadings of the Policy and Management section may need to be adjusted to be similar to the other subheadings on the page and Wikipedia as a whole.

In another organization area that could be improved, there are a few sections that could use hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles to make comprehension easier. To be clearer, in the “Land Uses and Historical Management” subsection of the “First Nations” section, one could link to articles about “mariculture” and “in holdings” because they have little description in the context of the article and may not be understood terms by the general public.

Another potential formatting change to better the article would be to relocate the “Land Uses and Historical Management” subsection from the “First Nations” section. This subsection contains little information that explicitly pertains to Indigenous people. Specifically, it speaks about former mariculture operations in the area, in holdings within the park’s borders, subdivisions in the park, and a brief mention of the First Nation reserve in the area. The connection between these topics and the overall section of the article most likely exist and thus this connection could be made more explicit to make the subsection fit more cohesively within the section. If these connections cannot be made more explicit, the subsection could be restructured into different areas of the article or be made into its own section.

The article does do a good job of breaking down the topic of the park into different categories that cover the topic in a holistic and detailed manner.

Sources and References

Overall the sources used for the article are decent, however there are some flaws within the overall source use and structure of the article. For one, while it is simply a formatting issue, the reference list of the article has duplicate citations for two articles. Specifically, reference 1 is identical to reference 10 and reference 2 is identical to reference 11. While simply a formatting error, there is another issue that may be more problematic. One of the sources used for the article, reference list citation 2 and 11 ("Forget the name. Desolation Sound is Canada's best-kept secret". Travel. 2023-09-22. Retrieved 2023-10-11.) appears to be a more blog-style article than a reliable and academic article. Blog-like sources can be used under some circumstances, but aside from this, a cursory glance over the article and its sources reveals a few issues. For one, within the first couple sentences it states that Desolation sound is “BC’s largest Marine Park” but the citation for this, the BC parks page for Desolation Sound Marine Park, ( https://bcparks.ca/desolation-sound-marine-park/#park-overview-container ) does not make this claim. This statement may simply be inaccurate. Contrary to this statement by the source, the BC parks page for the Broughton Archipelago Marine Park ( https://bcparks.ca/broughton-archipelago-park/#park-overview-container ) lists this marine park as the largest in British Columbia. This may be an issue of misunderstanding (or different ways of quantification) on the National Geographic writer’s part; however, the article does not have citations to prove this statement and this mistake or misunderstanding calls into question the reliability of the source as a whole. While the Wikipedia article does not utilize this information on the size of the marine park compared to others, the reliability of source 2(11) is questioned by this mistake and it may be better to rework the Wikipedia page to rely less on this article, instead relying on the articles that the national geographic article cites for its information (if they are considered reliable).

In terms of the other sources, they are up to date, reflect a large amount of the available literature and all the links to the listed references work properly, making it easy to check the sources for information and assistance in learning more on the topic.