User:Jiye Lim/Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary/Dhb18 Peer Review

General info
Jiye Lim/Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary
 * 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
After reading your Wikipedia article on the “Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary”, I feel I have developed a comprehensive understanding of its development and purpose. Specifically, I was able to find out how the composition of the sanctuary serves the needs and requirements of the various bird species. In addition, I learned how the establishment of Shoal Harbour’s neighboring town of “Clarenville” played a role in contributing to Shoal Harbour’s industrial development. By outlining the division of the bays and areas of the sanctuary, I gained a grasp on the density of bird species found in each area. Regarding the species of birds that can be found in Shoal Harbour, I learned the current protected status of each, their growth and migratory patterns, as well as their preferred habitats. Lastly, I learned how the various surfaces comprising the sanctuary provide essential resources and assist with ecosystem functioning.

Taking this into consideration, I like that I felt well-informed and educated after reading your article. Firstly, your “lead” section provided a very succinct and clear introduction. Through giving a short overview of the sanctuary’s location, why it was created, the environmental goals it seeks to achieve, the abundance of species found and the composition, readers gain a foundational understanding and are better prepared to absorb more of the details, found later in the article. Further, I also appreciated the inclusion of different sections of your “history” section, as this was extremely helpful in understanding the progression of Shoal Harbour’s development. The “history of Clarenville”, its “economic industry” and “Balbo’s Flight” gave context to the importance of Shoal Harbour, both to the environment and to the community.

It is evident that your article covered the boundary-making process of the sanctuary, the environmental issues/goals that spurred its implementation, the species inhabiting the area, information about “species at risk”, and the historical use of the protected area. As such, you met the requirement of meeting a total of five of the relevant topics.

I believe some more information could be added to your section on the “history of Clarenville in line with Shoal Harbour”, to provide more context. For example, it was interesting to hear how Shoal Harbour’s weather contributed to population and economic growth, but I was left wondering, how exactly. I think it would be beneficial to explain what type of weather occurred and why was this helpful in boosting population and economic growth. Also, I think there may be a small gap in your description of species at risk. You mention in your “lead” section that the sanctuary’s goal is to protect birds from “numerous threats” specific to their species, however, I do not see an explanation of what these threats consist of, later in the article. I think including this under each species you described would allow readers to better understand what exactly the sanctuary is providing these species, in addition to a “warm shelter”.

I found your language use very appropriate and the sentences concise and well-crafted. An exception to this may be the sentence; “Shoal Harbour was founded on April 10, 1931, as it includes 144 hectares of sheltered bays and extensive intertidal mudflats in North Stanch and Sidney”. The second half of the sentence does not follow logically from the first, as there is little connection between the date it was founded and its size and composition. Therefore, I would recommend removing the “as” and making the first statement regarding the date, a sentence on its own.

Starting with the history of Shoal Harbour, moving into a description of geography and ending with ecology, is very logical. It also makes sense to have sub-sections in your history section concerning the various developments that have influenced Shoal Harbour and the creation of the sanctuary. This is because it communicates that Shoal Harbour and the areas near it are used for various purposes by different people with different interests. The sub-sections in your “geography” section similarly convey the different compositions and uses of each bay and how this affects the abundance of birds in each. I think your table depicting the abundance of other bird species in the sanctuary was an appropriate addition, as it provides a visual aid and allows you to focus and provide descriptions for only the most pertinent bird species found in the sanctuary. However, I am not sure why there are a couple of species not listed in the table, but rather, underneath it. Perhaps this was a formatting error, but if you can include these species in the table, I think that would look more organized. Also, I would advise you to remove the “lead” title, as well as the “article body” subtitle.

A detail I don’t think is entirely necessary is the listing of the different categories of the IUCN’s evaluation of at-risk species, as this can be easily found in the link you provided, and as a result, may not be a particularly valuable inclusion. Otherwise, all of the information provided on the species is relevant, as are the details regarding Shoal Harbour’s geography and history. Because the protection of species is the main goal of the sanctuary, I think it is fair to have given slightly more space for this topic.

The tone of your article is both, professional and neutral. This is conveyed in your use of words such as “considered” when discussing the designation/status of species “at risk” and citing the sources in your descriptions. For example, by stating “According to Bird Count Data from the United States, this species’ population has a large increase in the continental population”, this communicates that your article is relying on the facts and statistics produced by reputable third parties and that no opinions are your own. Your article does not have any value-laden assertions or statements, nor does it imply any judgements or assessments of the topic. Though, I would suggest being careful about how much you focus on the connection between bird abundance and industrial and residential development, as this could be seen as attributing blame to, and portraying the community, negatively.

Concerning your sources, I believe there are enough to substantiate your claims and demonstrate their accuracy. In addition, they’re appropriate and reliable, as they include official government websites, organizations, and academic publications. However, your article has most of its citations at the very end of each paragraph. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, there needs to be a citation/reference after every claim, therefore, I would recommend inserting a citation after each sentence, rather than just at the bottom of the paragraph.

While your article’s history section highlights the significance Shoal Harbour has had to different people throughout time, I think your article would benefit from incorporating an Indigenous perspective, if you can find information about this. For example, did Indigenous people occupy this land before its appropriation for industrial development? If so, how did Indigenous peoples use the land? How did they benefit from the land and its resources? Did they have cultural ties to the land and if so, how did the creation of the bird sanctuary and industrial development affect their connection to the land? Because Indigenous peoples were the first to arrive in Canada, it is important to include their perspective when speaking on land development and its evolution. Additionally, your article highlights the ongoing marina and residential development and boat traffic in Tsehum Harbour, Blue Heron Basin and All Bay/Resthaven Park. By including a local or corporate perspective, I think this could help explain that human development alongside conservation efforts is a complex matter, due to the multiple and overlapping interests in these areas. Possibly, you could include some more information citing the revenue that has been generated by these developments or how communities like to use these areas (ex. which activities they participate in). This would demonstrate that Shoal Harbour not only benefits and is significant for at risk species, but the community, as well.

Well done on your article! I enjoyed reading and learning about the Shoal Harbour Migratory Bird Sanctuary!