User:JocelynMahri/South Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park/Mca278 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(South Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park)- Members: JocelynMahri, Amanalisfu, Kuriffin, HL0105, Fersauvage


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * South Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
PEER REVIEW: South Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park

Positive Feedback- (2/2)

This article was very informative and well-written. The order of issues presented works nicely and has smooth transitions. The geology section features a neat chart comparing the geological history of the park’s most prominent mountains. The chart is straightforward to read and understand. The ‘Wildlife’ section contains a generous amount of information pertaining to a nice variety of creatures, such as birds, insects, and mammals. It is nice that there was a variety in the species and types of animals discussed.

Engagement- (1/1)

Prior to this, I had no knowledge of South Chilcotin Mountains Provincial Park. I learned about the climate, with respect to climate change, vegetation in the park, as well as it’s spacial surroundings and geological history. There was a lot of engaging information about the endangered and endemic species that inhabit the park.

Content part 1- (1/1)

This draft successfully addresses the following five topics:


 * 1) Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)
 * 2) Information about any species that are endemic
 * 3) Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available.
 * 4) Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area
 * 5) How climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the protected area

Content Part 2- (0.5/1)

It would be nice to see some more information on Indigenous/First Nations Peoples, as well as more on climate change and the potential impacts it would have on this environment.

Clarity- (1/1)

Very clear and good presentation of the topics and information affiliated with the park. The paragraphs were easy to understand, and the language was not too intimidating. Each paragraph touched on something new and exciting.

Structure- (0.5/1)

This article features many different subtopics within topics that are organized very well, and most of the groupings are clear. The ‘Vegetation’ section could benefit from using different-sized headings and subheadings, as it was easy to get lost in the mix of consecutive similar-sized bolded titles.

Tone- (1/1)

This article is written in a neutral and professional tone. There are no apparent biases embedded in the writing.

Sources- (1/1)

This article has a good amount of legitimate, reliable sources (22). These sources include provincial park websites, the ministry of environment, as well as several from various accredited nature organization pages. The paragraphs are cited well, with every section including multiple in-text citations.

Balance- (1/1)

The article is concise and addresses the most prominent aspects of the topic. There is a lot of quality information about these headlines, and no section is dragged out for longer than it should. The group did a good job separating the roles and choosing the topics.

Whose voice is heard- (1/1)

Sources are all reputable and appropriate, with relevant perspectives. The draft authors also include a segment on Indigenous history/perspectives.

Civility of review- (1/1)

Writing is in a civil, kind, but helpful tone

Total: (11/12)