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

General info
A.pachl, Amos SFU, Lemonlime442, 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
I think this is really good rewrite of this article! I'm really impressed with the amount of good sources that were found for it. I'm also impressed by the amount of writing that's been put into this considering how short the original article is. I learned a lot through reading this, like how the Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala (Lull/Hoeya) Marine Refuge is Canada's first-ever marine refuge and that this is the only spot a specific species of coral is found along the British Columbian coastline.

Your draft has a really good overview/introductory sentence of what the article is about! That said, I think that the sentences on exact date of creation and establishment of the refuge could be combined as those are two really similar topics. I also think you don't need to refer to the ministries while also referring to the provincial government in this paragraph, as they're kind of the same thing. You could possibly also split this sentence into a few sentences with a bit more info on each topic to make what information the article will cover clearer- "the Lull/Hoeya Marine Refuge was created with the purpose of protecting biodiversity, endangered species, Indigenous culture and heritage, in an area with unique physical geography and oceanography." However, that may make the lead a bit too detailed, so it's your call and I think it's still well done as is, this is a really minor note. Aside from these pretty small edits, your lead is concise, describes the topic well, and is pretty unbiased to any particular part of the article, so I think you've done a good job on it and don't need to edit it much.

Considering content, there is lots of really good info throughout this article! As previously stated, I learned a good deal about this area by reading your article. All of it is up to date and there's only two sentences I found that need to be related back to the main topic of the article more. One of those is found in the "Establishment of the Marine Refuge" section, specifically this sentence- "the bioregion, as a whole, is biologically significant among Canada’s coastline." I think you would benefit by adding a very simplified explanation as to why the refuge is a biologically significant region on Canada's coastline directly after this sentence, even though it's cited, even though it's re-stated somewhere else (ex. ...significant among Canada's coastline because of the ecosystem within it). The other instance is this sentence from the "Purpose of the Refuge" section- "shallow oceanic ecosystems sequester carbon, provide a source of food, and serve as habitat for other organisms." You should add a quick few words either before or after this sentence to quickly explain that the refuge is a shallow oceanic ecosystem (ex. ...serve as habitat for other organisms- the Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala (Lull/Hoeya) Marine Refuge is an example of this type of ecosystem). I also think you should explain what Hoeya sill and barotrauma are, or link those phrases to an explanation. For Hoeya sill, just a link to what sill is would help if there's no easy definition avaliable. Also, with this much content, you've hit and surpassed the goal of addressing five topics off Professor Little's list. You've gone over the minimum of addressing five of those topics, as you wrote lots of information about eight of them! Because of this, I don't think anything is missing from this article, as it gives the reader a really good idea of the topic. As stated, there are only two terms that I wanted to know more about, so I think there's no content you should take out of the article, there's only a few small things to add. The range of content is really good as well, from Indigenous perspectives to history to biodiversity to landscape to use of the site. I also really liked the "Indigenous Involvement" section. I think it does a good job stating the area's history and all kinds of human impact largely without being convincing or persuasive on most issues- but I do think the very last sentence of the "Mamalilikulla's First Nation Involvement" section could use a source or rewrite as it does appear a little persuasive and a bit too much like a conclusion currently. All in all, I think you've done a solid job on the content of the article as there are only a few changes I'd recommend.

The tone of your draft is also very good! It's professional and is consistently neutral with no particular bias. There's no obvious persuasion, and what persuasion there is requires a very minor fix, as I could only find it in that one sentence. Also, nothing is over or underrepresented, so well done on this aspect of the article!

All of the links and citations I checked work and support the information you've written. Taking a look at your references list, every source is pretty recent as well, with most coming from this year and all of them being within 15 years of your rewrite of this article. However, there is one from The Narwhal which has the wrong author listed (there also may be a better source to use for this info). Regardless, this is another really good aspect of your article! Just keep a close eye on what you've added links to or defined in the article- I've already mentioned Hoeya sill and barotrauma but there may be a few other instances or words you should define or link to a definition that I missed. All in all, your sources and references are pretty good!

I did find a few minor grammar errors (check there's no space between the period and the number for the citations), and some formatting could be improved, as there are a few slightly confusing parts, just like in every draft. Considering the format, the sentence "profit-oriented harvesting, leisure-based fishing, mining, and waste-dumping would all damage the ecosystem around the refuge" in the section on "Preservation of Lull Bay and Hoeya Sound" doesn't have to be on its own line, you can add it to the paragraph above to improve the flow of the article. The first sentence of the "Before the Refuge" section as well as the "Establishment of the Marine Refuge" section should be looked at in terms of grammar and flow of your writing as well. Also in the "Before the Refuge" section- you refer to a marine protected area as a MPA without defining what an MPA is, so you should add a set of brackets after the first full mention of the MPA with the acronym (it's there on the second instance of the full title with a link to a definition, but not the first one). Also watch for unnecessary repetition, as the first line of the "Joint Management" section doesn't need to be restated- maybe rephrase this. In the section on rockfish, a sentence states that "these fish have a lifespan of up to 200 years, with the Yelloweye rockfish specifically living for up to 120 years and reach 50% maturity around 20 years old" and I think that should be split into two sentences so it's easier to understand. The structure throughout the article is largely easy to follow, but I do think that the "Before the Refuge" and "Establishing The Marine Refuge" sections should be combined into one paragraph with a new title as they feed into each a little too well to be separate. To be honest, I think this and the previously mentioned content issues are the biggest things you should change with your article- other than these issues, it's a great rewrite.

Overall, I like this article! I think it's largely well-written with accurate, relevant, and recent information. It is also much, much more complete now with viewpoints from the Indigenous people of the area, the Mamalilikulla First Nation, having information from them combined with that of academic professionals and the government. It's a good intersection of all viewpoints. I think the sections under the title "Indigenous Involvement" and the "Purpose of the Refuge" section are also particularly good content-wise as they provide a good history of the site as well as explaining the impact humans have had on the site, both positive and negative. The information on biodiversity and species at risk adds a lot to the article as well, as the sections that address this provide a good overview of what can be found in the refuge, more good reasons for the refuge being in place that aren't related to humans/human use at all, and they provide insight into the ecosystem of the region. The "Before the Refuge" and "Establishment of the Marine Refuge" sections could be combined into one paragraph under a title like "Recent History" for better flow of the article, but the information is really key in describing the creation of the refuge. I think you've hit on all the most important aspects of the refuge without getting off-track at any point, so good job! Good luck with your final draft! :)