User:Kyrastewart/Nirjutiqavvik National Wildlife Area/Damonr17 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kyrastewart, Lukedux8, RandomREM


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nirjutiqavvik National Wildlife Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article has lots of information regarding laws and regulations within the park, which is good. Building on these points can help, although is likely not necessary as they are already very well-developed. The points made about the laws and regulations are articulated well, although the in-text citations within the brackets can potentially be removed, as there are already citations embedded into Wikipedia with the small elevated numbers. This article touches on First Nations issues, species at risk within the park, species in the park, climate change within the park, and keystone species in the park. These are 5 of the topics that are required to be addressed in the criteria, which is good. I learned about the various species that inhabit this park, of which there is a lot of information in this article.

The tone of the article is neutral, and does not appear to take any biases or specific standpoints. The tone is also professional and civil, abiding by the criteria. There are a good amount of sources, however there are some specific points that could use sources, such as the claim that there are around 385,000 seabirds' nests in the park.

The structure of the article could use some work. Typically, articles on Wikipedia are broken up more with sub-headers, whereas this article is only broken up into a lead and a body. It can be confusing to some who read the article to go through the entire body of the article without any sub-headers to break up the various topics. The part that lists the seabird breeds with one per line is different from the rest of the article, which interrupts the flow. Making this consistent throughout the article can make the overall flow of the article better. The sentence structure is alright, but the abbreviations randomly interspersed throughout the article can be confusing (NWA). A suggestion for this would be to outline once early in the article what NWA, or any abbreviation, stands for, then using that abbreviation consistently throughout the remainder of the article.

The background information at the top is good, although a lot of this information is already in the main article. The article is well-balanced overall, with not too many details bringing down the main points. The information overall in the article is good, and appears to sufficiently cover the main points addressed from the criteria. There could be a touch more sources coming from diverse backgrounds, but the main viewpoints appear to be covered in this revision of this article.