User:Joycellyy/White Lake Grasslands Protected Area/Sofiiajj Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, it’s a good Wikipedia article with relevant subheadings. The article is neutral in its tone and keeps a professional manner throughout the whole text. When reading this article one gets a good overview over the geography, history and ecology of the White Lake Grasslands Protected Area. The article covers five of the topics mentioned in the assignment description (information about species, information about species at risk, description of issues that lead to the creation of the protected area, brief information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area and historical use of the land).

The Ecology subheading has a clear structure and the tables make it easy to get a good overview of the species existing in this area and the endangered species. However, one interesting topic that is briefly mentioned is the “Potential restoration species”. It would be good with some information and clarification about what this entails. What does it mean with potential restoration species? How would the restoration go about? To further discuss the ecology in the area, it could additionally be helpful to identify the population trend, and if the protected area has successfully helped the targeted species.

The two aims of the protected area is to provide protection to red- and blue-listed species as well as protect the archaeological sites and First Nations’ traditional land, and the article describes well which red- and blue-listed species could be found in this area. However, the “second” aim of the protected area is not covered in this article, but since it is a vital part of the protected area it would be valuable to have some more information about this. This would also help to reach a higher level of inclusion and a broader set of viewpoints within the article.

Additionally, the subheading Climate could be a bit more elaborate. How does this affect the vegetation/species within the area? How will climate change affect this protected area and its species?

It would be an idea to change the structure of the report in order for the reader to easier understand and follow along in the context. A suggestion would be to put the subheadings of Conservation and Management before the Ecology section. Another suggestion would be to move the Conservation subheading into the lead.

The article is overall based on reliable and good quality sources and all statements have sources to them. It is good that there are a variety of sources and that for example UNEP and management plan documents are used. However, PeakVisor would not be considered a reliable source since the app's primary purpose is to visualize and identify mountain peaks terrain, and not to serve as an authoritative source for ecological information. Additionally, there is a lack of information about the author’s academic/professional background and therefore the source would not be considered credible.