User:Jiye Lim/Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary/Ardenenglish1 Peer Review

General info
Jiye Lim, KathyCho, Yeonji Cho
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jiye Lim/Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead is simply and clear, as it should be. It contains general introductions to subjects that will be expanded upon in the article, such as biodiversity, and states simple facts about the sanctuary, like the size of the boundaries. There is an overview of the species present in the researched area which allows for further explanations in the main sections of the article. This is a very strong lead overall. I am unsure if this lead was written before or after the groups adjustments though.

Content:

There is an abundance of content in this article. I am gong to preface this section by mentioning that I am not sure what parts of the article existed before the sandbox was published as I doubt the full published version that is visible now is the complete original document. I am going to approach this as if the original article was as empty as the one my group wrote and will assume that all content is original. With this context, the content present in this article is vast and greatly covers the history of the land, as well as what species reside within its boundaries. That being said, I am not entirely sure how the boundaries were decided. There is a very complete history of the sanctuary, however, I feel as though sections of it could be modified to better address the questions that are being asked in the assignment, such as goals of creating the land and whether or not they have been met. I wish there was more content about different groups' thoughts on the area. For example, government, local, or First Nations perspectives regarding the land and how it is being used. It could also be worth noting whose land the Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary is located on. Despite these critiques, the article still does an excellent job at describing the sanctuary and I was able to adequately learn about the history of the area as well as the specific species, including those which are endangered.

Tone and Balance:

The tone and balance of the article seems to be written from a neutral perspective. As a reader, I could not feel any definitive biasses towards the topics being discussed and everything felt as if it was spoken in a confident "matter-of-fact" way. There is good clarity in the writing, meaning that I found no issues in reading what was written. The language and sentence structure all felt very professional, which also goes in line with the overall paragraph structure.

Sources and References:

The reference list is well formatted and nearly completely functioning. I had trouble accessing reference 8 and it looks like there could be some formatting errors with that reference specifically. References are spread well across the article.

Organization:

The organization in this article is very professional. It flows well and is structured in an understanding way which allows readers to progress naturally throughout the article. I believe if some of the content additions I previously mentioned were included, that the experience would feel a tad bit more full. That should not discredit the article in its current state though as the organization of the paragraphs, headers, titles, photos, and tables are very neat and organized. This all works well with the tone and balance of the writing. Readers who approach this article should be able to takeaway all the key points without having to scramble across it to find specific or general information.

Images and Media:

Images used in the article are fitting to the subject and are used at appropriate times. Images appear to either be taken by the members involved or at least sourced correctly.