User:Hdebus/Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area/DenisaPO Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hdebus/Vaseux-Bighorn_National_Wildlife_Area?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * - In the attractions category there was this one sentence that stood out as a little redundant to me "On these trails there are many wildlife viewing areas on the trails and across its boardwalk". I would somehow reword it to avoid repeating trails twice.
 * - For the geography section, I would like to see a visual of what is being described.
 * - "Other endangered species located in the area include the white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, pallid bat, spotted bat, American badger, Nuttal’s cottontail, Western Harvest mouse, Behr’s hairstreak." The animal names need to be capitalized and consistent. The entire paragraph for other species found in the protected area needs to be edited with the capitalization of the animal and plant names.
 * - This title needs to be reworded "Wether the Goals that led to the Creation of this Protected Area are Being Met, and How this is Being Measured"
 * - The BGC zones section would benefit with some visual tool showing where these areas are, precipitation patterns etc
 * - For the species at risk section, adding pictures of these animals could be very useful for the reader.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * - I believe the article so far is written with a very neutral tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * - I think everything written so far has been represented equally
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * - All the citation links work properly without issue.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * - Each statement and fact has a proper and reliable source from either government organizations or peer reviewed academic journals.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * - I think that so far this group is off to a great start! I would say that if some of the recommendations were done that I mentioned above, the article would be very well done.
 * - Everything that was written is also very clear and concise without the use of jargon which allows the reader to easily grasp what is being mentioned.
 * - Each statement and fact has a proper and reliable source from either government organizations or peer reviewed academic journals.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * - I think that so far this group is off to a great start! I would say that if some of the recommendations were done that I mentioned above, the article would be very well done.
 * - Everything that was written is also very clear and concise without the use of jargon which allows the reader to easily grasp what is being mentioned.
 * - Everything that was written is also very clear and concise without the use of jargon which allows the reader to easily grasp what is being mentioned.