User:Milli.cw/Minnekhada Regional Park/Bentriggs Peer Review

General info
Milli.cw
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Milli.cw/Minnekhada Regional Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Minnekhada Regional Park
 * Minnekhada Regional Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
What I learned/what is strong:

I learned about the history of the park. I have heard of Minnekhada before, but I did not know the of its varied history as a farm, hunting lodge and general leisure property before it was handed over to the crown. As well I learned about the more recent history with wildfires. It is concerning to read about large wildfires so close to the lower mainland.

The ecology section of the article is strong as it covers a lot of content and gives the reader a good picture of what the ecology of the park looks like. I like that you broke it down into sections so that it is easier to absorb all the info covering the different species.

Another strong section is the Indigenous involvement section. It is important to retain this because this shows the roots of the area go back further than just the colonial history. As well even though Indigenous Peoples were left out of the forming of the park and there is not much information, it is important to point out that was the case.

Do they currently address 5 goals:

You currently cover well over five of the suggested topics. Though there are some areas that you can improve.

What content or accuracy needed work/what did I want to know more:

You start the first paragraph in the ecology section and the first paragraph in the vegetation section stating that there are three different ecosystems in the first and nine in the second. While I understand what you are saying, this is ultimately unclear to the reader and needs to be more accurate. Find a way to be more specific in this instance.

While the Historical of Passing hands section is informative, it doesn’t fit into the scope of the assignment as much of it does not pertain to resource management or ecology. I think you can keep most of it but I would summarize it down to make it a quicker read so the reader can get to the most pertinent information.

Some of the topics you could include more information for are historical resource management. You focus a lot on the hunting that happened there but maybe there is more information you can include pertaining to farming and forestry. For the recreation section you could include more data like the amount of the visitors that the park gets annually to give a sense of how busy the park is.

The various sections about species at risk in the park are very well done. If you can include another example, maybe in the bird section, I think that would make the article more engaging overall.

Difficult to understand author or accuracy because of confusing language:

The first paragraph in the vegetation section is confusing. I understand that you are communicating what is being presented in the following list, but it took me three or four reads to be able to understand that. I would consider re-writing that section to make it easier to read.

Structure/organization: what works or doesn’t:

The structure of the article is overall well done. Things are organized under titles, so the information is grouped up nicely and it is in a place that makes sense for it to be. The History of Passing Hands section and vegetation sub section could be worked on to look more like the ecology section, with subheadings to break up the big blocks of text and organize the thoughts more.

The Minnekhada farm and lodge sections are less important to the overall article and can both be put either behind The History of Passing Hands section or even at the bottom of the article.

There are a few instances where you say something to the effect of "like stated above". I don't think you necessarily need to state that every time. If it is directly relevant to what you are writing in the moment, then include it without the qualifier but if you think you can go without it, considering it has already been said, then I would remove it.

There are a few other instances of information being repeated that can be omitted. The information in the extracted resource section is largely already covered in the History of Passing Hands section and it makes the article feel repetitive. Considering my other recommendation of reducing the History of Passing hands section, you can remove some of the more resource centred info and bolster the extracted resource section.

The font throughout the article is inconsistent and much of it is in bold. It should all be consistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Tone:

The tone of the article largely comes across as professional and neutral. There are only two instances where the tone doesn’t come across as neutral, a large part of Wikipedia’s policy. The last two sentences of the recreation and wildfire section come across as if a recommendation is being given. I would re-write this to come across more neutral or if that is not possible then remove them all together.

Enough sources, statements that need to be cited, are the sources good:

I believe that there are enough sources of good quality for this article. If anything, I recommend the inclusion of more peer-reviewed journals, but I understand that might not be possible in the scope of this assignment. Some sections rely heavily on one or two sources which can be problematic. Include more if you can better back up your claims.

There are many claims that go uncited in this article. Some sections do better than others, but I was able to find uncited claims in all sections. In some sections a large majority of the claims that are made are uncited. For example, most of the vegetation section, amphibians and reptiles and Indigenous involvement need citations. Most sentences need a citation as per Wikipedia’s policy as the claims being made are mostly not common knowledge.

Does it address the most important parts of the topic or get bogged down:

The most important parts of the park are covered. There is a lot of good information regarding the ecology, Indigenous Involvement, and wildfires. The article does get bogged down by the history sections which is not the focus of the assignment. Shoring up the history sections will leave room for expanding the resource extracting and recreation sections that will balance the article by providing more relevant information regarding ecology and resource management.

Is it equitable and inclusive:

You have a good number of references that consider all viewpoints and are diverse and equitable. One of the strongest parts of this article is the sections about involvement of Indigenous Peoples. I believe you have done a great job in representing how Indigenous Peoples were involved with this issue with information directly from the websites of First Nations. As well, you represented the effects that colonialism have wrought on Indigenous Peoples in the context of this assignment.

I think you all have a done a good job and once you have made some tweaks this will be a great article.