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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Amanalisfu, Fersauvage, HL0105, JocelynMahri, Kuriffin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JocelynMahri/South_Chilcotin_Mountains_Provincial_Park&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Here is my peer review:

Lead
I don't see any information for your draft lead, make sure to add information here for your final draft and include descriptions for your article's major sections.

Content
Nice job finding lots of content to add to your article. Most of your information is relevant to the topic, and the information you have included is quite detailed. I would only suggest that you might want to remove details that could be found in a different wikipedia article. For example, your section on Wildlife includes descriptive information for some the species, such as the horned larks, stating "Horned larks are sandy to rusty brown...". However, this information is not related to the park itself, and therefore I think it would be better if you just link the species to their own Wikipedia article that probably already exists, and if people want additional information on those species they can go there instead. You have some great information though about the wildlife that lives there! The content also looks up-to-date, so great job!

In terms of dealing with Wikipedia's equity gaps and addressing topics related to historically underrepresented populations/topics, I think it's great you included a section on Indigenous Peoples, and found which specific Nations used the area. I think it's useful to include this information and discuss the historical uses of the resources in the park and is one section discussed in the rubric. However, I think it's important to take great care when discussing these topics, and making sure that your information is also relevant to the present. The information you have included is very much oriented in the past, and does not discuss how these Nations might still be using this area, or contributing to the park. I would encourage you to research how the Nations might or might not have been consulted during the creation of the park, and what their relationship to the park might be like now. Also, when you discuss how those plant species were "important staples" to the Nation, I would encourage you to consider that these plants still might be important to the Nations. I know it is difficult to sometimes find information on Indigenous Peoples and specific communities, but you could try the actual Nations' websites, or something authored by an Indigenous person to try and include those perspectives into your article.

There is some information missing. As discussed, more information on the Indigenous Peoples in the area would be beneficial. Additionally, make sure you review the rubric for this assignment in Canvas, specifically at least including 5 topics listed in the rubric. You have included some really great and detailed information on what species can be found in this area! You also have information about climate change impacts on the park, information about endemic species, some information on species at risk, and history of resource-use in the park. I think there is room for more of the topics listed in the rubric to be discussed, such as tourism/number of visitors to the park, more information about species at risk, issues/goals that lead to the creation of the protected area, and how the boundaries of the park were decided. Some of the content could also be expanded on to fully encapsulate what the rubric asks for. Some of the information in you Geology section could go in a tourism section instead, such as your statements: "The main tourism sites in South Chilcotin Mountain Park include Spruce Lake, Pearson Pond, and Taylor Basin" and "The lake is ideal for fishing and swimming in the summer. Pearson Pond is the center of a network of hiking paths within South Chilcotin Mountain Park.".

Overall, I think all the sections you have are really great and well-researched. Your sections on vegetation background and ecosystem zones are super insightful and I like that they are concise but still contain a lot of information all specific to the park. Great job on finding information related to a wide variety of species in the park (i.e. insects, mammals, birds). The climate, geology, and wildlife sections all have great information, covering a wide variety of ecology-related information about the park.

Tone and Balance
I think you did a great job at keeping a neutral, unbiased, and professional tone throughout the article. For the most part, I didn't feel at any point like you were trying to prove something, only stating information. I would suggest though changing the wording in this sentence in the Mammals section: "Due to historical over-harvesting by legal and illegal hunting, as well as habitat degradation over time thanks to fire suppression..." I would change the wording "thanks to fire suppression" to something else, as using this kind of wording seems less neutral to me. I would also avoid using terms like "perfect". For example, in your Mammals section it states: "...as well as being perfect locations for denning." I would avoid using terms like "perfect" because that is not a term that can easily be quantified, and the definition of an absolutely perfect denning site might vary depending on who you ask. It leaves me wondering "what is a perfect denning site?". Instead, just stating that these are denning locations might make the writing more neutral. Overall, I don't think your article attempted to persuade me in favour of one position or away from another, so great job!

I would also encourage the inclusion of other viewpoints in the article, specifically by Indigenous Peoples.

Sources and References
You have added a lot more sources to the article than there previously was, so good job with that. Although, some statements made in your draft are not backed by a source. For example, the last sentence in your climate section lacks a source. The content included does accurately reflect what the sources said.

In terms of sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors and inclusion of historically marginalized people, I think you have room to incorporate this more. For example, the section on Indigenous Peoples cites the BC Parks website, but does not include information that might be directly from the First Nations themselves. Additionally, most of the sources were websites from government or organizations, but I could not find any peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. Therefore, I think the sources could be a bit more thorough and reflect a greater variety of authors. The sources all appear to be current and the links provided do work, so good job on that.

Overall, nice job but I would suggest you find some peer-reviewed journal articles to include and to support the information you provided.

Organization
The content you have provided is written in a concise manner and is fairly straightforward and easy to read. However, there are some parts of the article that are not grammatically correct, and some sentence structures that make reading the article a bit difficult at certain parts. I would also be careful of including the same words in the same sentence multiple times. For example, the sentence in the climate change and endangered species section: "Due to the altering changes in the temperature, it alters the ecosystems..." the word "alter" is used twice. Additionally, the sentence in the mammals section: "Due to historical over-harvesting by legal and illegal hunting, as well as habitat degradation over time thanks to fire suppression, the invasion of non-native plants, intensive cattle grazing, etc." is not a complete sentence. There are also some inconsistencies with the placement of periods before or after the citation number at the end of the sentence. Some sentences have the period after the citation number, and I found a few that have the period before the citation number.

I think the content you have added is generally well organized. However, I think there is a possibility for some of the sub-sections to become their own sections. For example, I think Indigenous Peoples should be a separate heading and not included with vegetation. I know you discuss the historical relation of Indigenous Peoples and vegetation in the park, but there's a lot more information that could be included about Indigenous Peoples in the area, therefore it could be a separate section. Your wildlife section is well organized into subsections, however if you are going to add more information on species at risk, I think that could become its own subsection. Your vegetation section is well broken up into subsections for the different ecosystem zones, but as previously stated, your Indigenous Peoples subsection could be its own section, and similarly with the climate change subsection if you find more information on that topic.

Overall impressions
Overall, I'm really impressed with all the information you were able to add to your article! It was very sparse before you added your contributions, so well done! I think the main strengths of your added content is that it is concise and clear, and all relevant to the park. It sounds like this park has complex biodiversity and lots going on in terms of ecology, so I think you were able to capture that in a really great, clear way that is easy to understand. I also liked that you included a table in your geology section. While you do include a lot of detail in the article, I don't think it is bogged down in detail, so great job finding an appropriate balance!

In order to improve the article, I think you could diversify your sources more, include historically marginalized authors, confirm that your sentences are all complete, confirm citations are added in a consistent way, expand on some of the points you made (i.e. Indigenous Peoples, climate change, species at risk, etc.), and ensure that everything mentioned in your article relates specifically to the park and is not something addressed specifically in a different wikipedia article. Also, you have some links inserted to different wikipedia articles, but you could do this with species as well.

Overall, a great start to your article and I enjoyed reading it! This sounds like it is a beautiful park.