User:Jennyjieun/Nlháxten/Cerise Creek Conservancy/Nataliectl Peer Review

General info
Jennyjieun
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jennyjieun/Nlháxten/Cerise Creek Conservancy
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, it is a great Wikipedia article written in a neutral tone and strikes a balanced discussion on each topic. Readers can get a great overview of topics such as geography, history, protected area, goals of the protected area, management, ecology, and visitors. The article has covered most of the topics mentioned in the assignment rubric. It covers eight topics, including information about what species can be found in the protected area, identification of any species at risk, description of the goals that led to the creation of the protected area, information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territories are included in the protected area, whether First Nations were included in the process creating the area, whether First Nations are currently included in management decision-making processes for the area and their priorities for the management, the number of visitors and their activities, and resources harvested there.

For the goals of the protected area, information regarding whether the goals that led to the creation of the protected area are being met, and how this is being measured could be added to provide a clearer status quo of the area. The introductory sentence of the protected area, "the area contains five provincial parks and three conservancies", might confuse readers as it is inconsistent with the content, which only included two of the parks and none of the conservancies. More information on the missing parts should be clarified to make the context easier to understand for readers. For ecology, it could be a good idea to provide more detailed red and blue-listed species lists with their population trends.

To improve the article, writers could add missing information such as how the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided, information about species that are endemic, how the historical use of the area affected the formation of the protected area, and how climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the protected area.

Wikilinks are used thoroughly in the whole article, which helps the understanding of each element in the paragraphs. From reading this article, I've realized the importance of adding wikilinks to terms that appear in each sentence, and incorporating this could help bring out more concise information in my Wikipedia article. However, some wikilinks in red did not work out as they do not have an existing Wikipedia page to be directed to. Nevertheless, the red links can help to indicate the missing Wikipedia pages that need to be addressed one day by other writers.

Bold texts might be used overly in the lead and geography part. Using less bold text would make it easier to read as the significant information won't be masked. Headings of the History and Visitor parts could be more specific. Example headings could be "First Nations Heritage and Connection to the Conservancy" and "Visitors Information and Recreational Activities". Also, the topic of the protected area should go before the goals of the protected area to make a better structure. Overall, the article is cited thoroughly and written with reliable sources. For example, including United Nations lists and management plans make good quality sources.