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

General info
Minnekhada Regional Park by 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

What are the good aspects of this article and why?
Sections about some other facts such as recreational use and wildfire grabbed my attention while reading the article. They were not totally disconnected to the topic of this article and also weren’t boring at all, so this kind of facts would interest readers and be a great hook as they read the long article. Also, for the Ecology section, including reasons why a species is endangered or declining and how people are trying to protect these species help readers understand and feel the importance of this park and why it should be taken care of. I think it’s a good aspect not just because it is informative but because it indirectly raises awareness of how humans negatively influence the environment. Good job :)

What did I learn from reading and engaging with this article?
As a student who is living in Coquitlam, I learned a lot about my hometown by reading this article. I’ve never been to Minnekhada Park before, and getting to know how my hometown in the past looks really connected me with my hometown. As I was checking your resources, I found that where I live was once a racing track which was quite surprising. Also, after I read the First Nation section, it was interesting that they weren’t involved in development and management of this park, even though they had inhabited this area.

This article contains:

 * 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) Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available
 * 4) Partial: Whether the goals that led to the creation of the protected area are being met, and how this is being measured
 * 5) Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area
 * 6) Whether First Nations were included in the process creating the protected area, or whether they supported the creation of the protected area
 * 7) Whether First Nations are currently included in management decisionmaking processes for the protected area, and either way, what their priorities are for the management of and access to the area
 * 8) Historical use of the now-protected area

Where did you want to know more? Where need more improvement in content or accuracy?
It would be better if there were more information about how the current owner is protecting this park and what measures have been taken to protect endangered or declining species. It was good to know the former owners of this park but if possible, it would be nice to include what transformed this area into a natural park instead of expanding hunting or agricultural businesses.

Clarity
I could understand most of the article but some grammatical errors bothered me a little, mostly in the History section and Extracted Resource. There were some comma splicing, spelling and shifting verb tense errors. For example, ''“As the parks committee had delegated that at least 125 hectares of the land should be arranged by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, with the idea that it would stay in the state of a regional nature park. In which it did.”'' I would proofread again to find errors. Also, there were some terms I didn’t know and had to look it up for their definitions, such as xeric. I think it would be better if you add some explanation about them.

Structure
The structure is interpretable and well organized. Dividing the Ecology into an environment section, animal section and vegetation section is great because each can have overlapping information as we can talk about food chain, which will cause confusion if they are combined into one big paragraph. Also, subsections without subtitles can be understood without difficulty because each subsection is divided by each region or each type of species described in the first paragraph of its parent section. However, I didn’t know what Extracted Resource is for. It seemed to be related to history and ecology and hard to know where to include this information in. I think it could be better if you put this section under the History section and made it a subsection.

Tone
The overall tone is professional and neutral except the very last sentence of this article. It is the right thing to say and should be considered, but it contains some suggestive tone which can imply that the writers are concerned with wildfire instead of being a neutral observer/writer. It would be better if you explain what the provincial government or related institutions are planning for prevention and post-wildfire.

Source
“Since minnekhada is located in Coquitlam, it is expected to see even more foot traffic as the population of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam (the adjacent city) continue to grow.” I’m not sure if this information is true, since it doesn’t have a resource cited. However, everything else seemed credible because I noticed some of them are reports by studies and programs and technical papers. Some portions of resources were official websites and I’m not sure if they are neutral resources even if they contain facts. Also, I found few parts of your article seemed very similar to their original sources and some paragraphs/sentences are not cited even though it has a numerical value, which I'm concerned if it is from some sources. For example, "American black bears and deer are active each year around the park." needs some retouch.

Whose voice is heard
I think this article has most of the related perspectives including the former owners’, but I noticed that perspectives from the First Nation are not as much as others. It is sad that there’s not enough resources for their opinions regarding Minnekhada Park.

Balance
The Ecology section has a not deep but informative explanation of characteristics of each region. Explaining what species and vegetation live in each region but not describing each of them in depth seems like a good balance for this article. I liked how you explained that the first name is herb, second name is shrub or tree and third name is main tree species before showing the 9 ecosystem associations. It was hard to know what each name separated by “-” means. Good job!

Writing is in a civil, kind, but helpful tone?
The overall article sounded informative and well explained the description of Minnekhada Regional Park by including its various components and the root of its creation.