User:Hdebus/Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area/Laurenmac03 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hdebus


 * 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)
 * Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

While the lead is concise and clear it has not been changed from the original wikipedia article, adding a bit more information from the original and updating would elevate it to match the rest of the content in your article.

Content:

The content is relative to the topic, however most of the sources are quite a few years old, but the information cited it still important. If possible try adding more up to date information especially with the 5 goals of conservation if you can find any newer sources. While indigenous perspective is briefly mentioned in the history it would be nice to see more information on the current connection of indigenous communities with the land. The content remained neutral and expressed nothing but facts.

Sources and References:

Certain paragraphs need much more citing to back up the information being presented, specifically in the 'Other Species Found in the Protected Area" paragraph there was only one reference cited, as well as in the "Wether the Goals that led to the Creation of this Protected Area are Being Met, and How this is Being Measured" sectioned, for such a big paragraph adding more references would be beneficial in order to back up your information. A lot of the sources are listed from the same government website "Canada, Environment, and Climate Change," while the information from this website is relevant to the content, I would suggest trying to find a wider variation in your sources. It would also be nice to see sources from indigenous sources and not just entirely the government website.

Organization:

There was only minor punctuation and grammar mistakes, but most sections were easy to read which was nice! The paragraph on "Wether the Goals that led to the Creation of this Protected Area are Being Met, and How this is Being Measured" was a bit lengthy and wordy, it would be easier to follow if it was condensed to be more concise, or broken down further into more specific headers to get a better understanding of the content, as well as condensing the header to be less wordy.

Images and Media

In the draft there is no images added however I'm sure there will be in the final article

Overall Impressions

The article did a great job presenting the facts and content the original article was missing making it much more informative, however the lead and geography sections were not changed from the original and it would be great if more information was included into both. The overall article could be elevated by including different sources to draw on information from more than just one or two websites, as well as condensing certain sections to have a better balance and flow to the article.