User:Lemonlime442/Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala (Lull/Hoeya) Marine Refuge/Aidan1704 Peer Review

General info
Lemonlime442, Amos SFU, A.pachl, Mem20
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lemonlime442/Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala (Lull/Hoeya) Marine Refuge
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala (Lull/Hoeya) Marine Refuge

Evaluate the drafted changes
''' Highlight aspects of your classmates’ work that are strong, so that they know to keep these sections. It explains why these aspects are good, so that they can ensure any edits they make retain these aspects or even expand them to further parts of the draft article'''

Background info: I really enjoyed reading about the history, establishment, and purpose of the refuge. This is a very strong aspect of the article as the information provided is very comprehensive but not too overwhelming or detailed.

The draft also does a great job of explaining the importance of the Indigenous people who inhabit(ed) the area, and their significance. I like that their contributions are acknowledged and the article tells me how they are still involved in decision-making.

Another thing I liked is that many specific examples (data) and references (Fisheries Act, 30 by 30) are effectively employed in the writing, which adds depth and a broader context to the article.

Review tells the article authors what the peer reviewer learned from reading and engaging with this draft article.

This article draft gave me a very informative overview about the marine refuge. I learned a ton about the ecological and cultural significance of the refuge, as well as how that can connect to other topics such as Indigenous involvement and conservation. The information was easy to process, and the addition of engaging links and references allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of what I was reading about.

The draft currently addresses these topics (underlined spots could use some extra info):


 * 1) How the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided
 * 2) Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)
 * 3) Information about any species that are endemic
 * 4) Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available
 * 5) Description of the issues/goals that led to the creation of the protected area
 * 6) Whether the goals that led to the creation of the protected area are being met, and how this is being measured
 * 7) Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area
 * 8) Whether First Nations were included in the process creating the protected area, or whether they supported the creation of the protected area
 * 9) Whether First Nations are currently included in management decision-making processes for the protected area, and either way, what their priorities are for the management of and access to the area
 * 10) Historical use of the now-protected area: what resources were harvested or extracted there (biological resources like fish, animals, plants, or timber; physical resources like rock or oil), how much, when, and by who? How did this affect the formation of the protected area?
 * 11) How climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the protected area

'''Address any areas of your classmates’ work that need improvement in content or accuracy – do any gaps remain? Where did you want to know more?'''

I think there are a few pieces which are slightly incomplete, and could use a little more explanation and/or information.

Biodiversity: There is already a lot of great information on corals and fish, so I would consider adding some information about other creatures like whales, seals, otters, etc and how these species might impact or interact with the others (what roles they play) in the refuge.

Preservation/conservation: I think a bit more information on the harvesting of resources, historically (and currently) would be useful. This would help the reader to better understand the conservation and preservation efforts mentioned in the article.There is one sentence about this sitting alone at the bottom of the preservation paragraph, so I'm assuming you're already on top of that!

Climate change: They are listed, but I would add some more information to the environmental pressures/climate change component. It would allow the reader to better understand how those impacts are currently influencing the biodiversity and conservation in the area, and how that may change in the future.

Rockfish: I think you could add something about rockfish conservation areas, as these play a crucial role in rockfish survival and conservation along the coast.

Identify any places where it is difficult to understand the content or assess its accuracy because of confusing writing, language, or sentence structure.

For the most part, the article is very well written. I expect this would be done anyways before the final article, but I would review word choice and grammar as you are writing, maybe try reading it back to yourself to see if it makes sense. For example, you could use the word "prohibited" instead of "not permitted" in this sentence: trawling and tuna-fishing were already not permitted in the area.

Physical Geography and Oceanography/Endangered Species and Species at Risk: For these sections, something I noticed as I was reading is that there are some parts aren't totally explained. For example, what is the Hoeya Head Sill? Why is rockfish lifespan relevant?

'''Structure of the article: what is working, and what is not working? Could it be better organized? Is it clear why sentences are grouped into paragraphs or subsections?'''

Overall, I found that the article was very well organized, and the sentences and subsections are clearly structured. It flows nicely and each component connects to one another. You might want to add some images or maps for visual effect.

'''Tone of the article: is it professional? Is it neutral, according to the Wikipedia guidelines?'''

The article is very professional and neutral. There's a ton of information, but it maintains a balanced tone without showing any bias or opinion. Especially with topics like Indigenous rights and conservation these can often be hard to avoid, so this is very well done.

'''Sources used in the article: are there enough sources? Are there statements that need to be sourced? Are the sources appropriate (according to Wikipedia guidelines)? Could there be better sources?'''

As I noted in the article strengths, there are plenty of sources to external data and references, which add depth and validity to the article.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I don't believe that the website "The Narwhal" is considered neutral source (and it is referenced), so that may be something worth checking!

Tip: I enjoy fishing myself, and a website I often go to for regulations and notices is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website. It sorts by region, then further into subsections, and provides up to date information on regulations and conservation notices. I think this would be a nice addition as a reference.

Balancing of work: does it address the most important and notable aspects of the topic, or does it get bogged down in details?

The article is very well balanced, and there is a strong emphasis on the notable aspects, such as the history, preservation, Indigenous presence, and biodiversity. The subsections are a great way to emphasize these aspects. The article is very comprehensive for just about anyone, and it doesn't bog you down too much with irrelevant or excessive details.

Issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion: have your classmates included all relevant perspectives in their article draft, or are there sources they could add that would address neglected viewpoints?

The article draft includes some very essential information on the Indigenous peoples in the area. However, as I read through the article, there were a few small changes I would suggest.

First off, I would consider adding some more Indigenous perspectives. There is a lot of surface-level information about the Mamalilikulla nation, but including an Indigenous voice or perspective (journal, proof of collaboration, etc), would be a wonderful addition.

I would also consider adding some more information about the traditional lifestyle of the Mamalilikulla nation (hunting and fishing, where they lived, etc), which would provide a deeper understanding of their cultural and ecological connections, which in turn informed their conservation efforts.

A very good start! I really enjoyed reading through your work.