User:Michaelammd11/Cathedral Provincial Park and Protected Area/JHK34 Peer Review

General info
Michaelammd11, EllaMagnussen, Bentriggs, Jimbo917
 * 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
Lead:

I suggest adding an updated lead for the new article. There is an existing short lead on the Wiki Page already, so adding more information to the existing lead would be good.

Content:

The article did a great job covering more than five different topics. The history subsections add great detail about the park. I particularly liked the cultural history subsection, which included the Indigenous Peoples’ history. The endemic species section was educational, and I liked how the area included what was disturbing the species. The article’s climate change section was brief but provided all the different impacts of climate change. It is good to see that the park goal section mentioned the issues of the outdated park plan, like recreational issues and Indigenous Peoples collaboration. The only suggestion I would give is that the information about Indigenous Peoples’ involvement could be expanded on, and it would be great if the article had a separate subsection for declining endemic species and why they are at risk. Stating specifically who the park is managed by would be great as well.

Tone and Balance

The article provides different aspects and issues of the protected area while maintaining a neutral tone. A specific example would be how I could see the problem between the park’s goal of providing public recreation and the disturbance the goal is causing for species such as the Mountain Goats. The article did a great job neutrally spotlighting different aspects and issues. You guys also did a great job using various sources that are primarily up-to-date. The article seems to cover important information about the park, such as its history, impact of climate change, geology, and ecology. By comparing the draft and the original article, there is no repetitive information, and the topics included by you guys made the piece more informative.

Citation and References:

Links to other Wikipedia Pages were added correctly, and almost all of the citations and references were done accurately. One of my suggestions would be to put the citation brackets at the very end of the sentence and before the period. Fixing the two references in red would be great as well. Also, the “Snowy Protected Area” link in the history section should be fixed. You guys did not write that specific part, but it would be great if that was resolved.

Organization:

Overall, the article is clear and complete with rich information. The readability would be enhanced if we fix a few errors such as punctuation, capitalization, and repetitiveness in sentences. It would be good to add proper capitalization for Indigenous Peoples and groups. Getting rid of these minor errors would make your already great article even more concise and better.

Images and Media:

Adding images of the Cathedral Provincial Park and species found in that area when finishing up the final article could make the piece more intriguing.

Conclusion:

I really enjoyed reading the article and learned a lot about the Cathedral Provincial Park and Protected Area. Some feedback was added, but overall, the article was professional, direct, and flowed well. You guys did a fantastic job on this article!