User:Michaelammd11/Cathedral Provincial Park and Protected Area/Hf04 Peer Review

General info
Michaelammd11
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Michaelammd11/Cathedral Provincial Park and Protected Area
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cathedral Provincial Park and Protected Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
Positive feedback, Engagement, overall impressions

Throughout reading this article, the focus on the ecological factors for each section and the depth of information was one of its biggest strengths; for each section, the primary focus was the ecology and management of the land. The article also does an exceptional job at keeping the tone neutral and professional which aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines. It is also helpful that the article has links to other Wikipedia pages, making it easier for the reader to understand the content. This is something I will apply to my own article. The article is significantly more complete now and succeeds to provide insightful and descriptive information about different aspects of the environment and planning management. The Indigenous and European history with this area was informative and interesting to learn about as it can be treated as a backdrop to the rest of information about the culture and management of the protected area. So, generally, the biggest thing to improve throughout this article would be to include more Indigenous viewpoints.

Content

Overall, the content added to this article gives relevant and clear information about the different aspects of Cathedral Provincial Park. Aspects such as how the boundaries and size of Cathedral Park were decided and how climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the park were good ways of starting and ending this article. Some sections however could include more information. For example, the “Recreation” section could mention hiking, any sports activities, potential water activities, any restrictions on recreational use, Indigenous activities etc. This would broaden the readers' understanding of the extent of recreational use in the park. Moving on, the article does a really good job of discussing and describing different species, both endemic and species at risk, of animals, plants, etc in the Cathedral Park area. It includes an appropriate amount of species. To add onto this information, the “Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)” section has room to include different relations these animals have with the landscape of Cathedral Park. Although the physical descriptions of the different animals are appreciated, it would also be informative to include what climates and habitats these animals typically live in and how that relates to their population in the Cathedral Park area. This would connect the animal population with the physical environment and create a more balanced layout of information. Next, the “Park Management” section provides informative content overall. However, it could be insightful to include what the Indigenous involvement in park management looks like. This could include mentioning whether the local Indigenous people were included in decision making processes or if they were initially consulted about the making of Cathedral Park at all, etc. Finally, The “Cultural History” section provided a well written and relevant insight into what the Indigenous and European history of Cathedral Park is. This information does a good job of including the  Nlaka'pamux and Syilx peoples' history to the land.

Tone

Overall, the content does not include claims that appear heavily biased to different positions and does a good job at stating facts in a neutral tone. There are just some sentences that could be made more neutral. In the section, “Geology and Structures”, the word “incredible” is subjective and unnecessary in the sentence, “unique formations with incredible views formed…” and can be excluded. Moving on, throughout the article, especially in the sections, “Cultural History”, “Recreation”, and “Park Management”, there is room to mention more Indigenous viewpoints in relation to the content provided.

Sources

The sources used are official government and peer-reviewed sources and give insightful information about the ecological, planning, and cultural aspects of the park. Considering that the park has not had a master plan since 1989, it is expected that some sources are just as old. However, government websites and the peer reviewed articles are on to date. The links work and align with Wikipedia's guidelines for appropriate sources.

Clarity, Structure, Balance

Most of the sections had well-written and concise sentence structure. There are some areas that could be improved grammatically. In sections, “Geology and structures”, “Cultural History”, and “Information about any species that are endemic - organisms that live in a limited area”, periods at the end of a sentence should be before the citation. Also, for the first section, “History”, the order of units for land should be consistent so the reader is not confused (i.e. if the first mention of acres and hectares is written as “ hectares (acres)”, it should stay in that order throughout the section). Other than that the “History” section is written in a concise and well-ordered manner. Next, in the “Historical resource use and extractions” section, “Park” should be lowercase and the last sentence can be shortened. For example: “Several management concerns and issues were identified in this Policy Statement. These remained and revolved around fundamental problems of balancing park development and use while maintaining the Parks resource values and wilderness atmosphere and minimizing friction between potentially conflicting recreation interests”. Moving on, in the “ Information about any species that are endemic - organisms that live in a limited area”, “organisms that live in a limited area” is unnecessary and can be excluded. Additionally, there is unnecessary repetition of words throughout this section. For example “ is a” is repeated twice in the first sentence. There are also unnecessary commas throughout the article. For example, the comma in “include, forest openings” is inappropriate. There is also a minor spelling mistake: “Okanogan” should be written as “Okanagan”. Overall, the article is written in a concise and neutral manner and does a good job of making it easy to read and follow.