User:Nataliefong00/Tantramar Marshes/Lemons33 Peer Review

General info

 * Link to draft being reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User :Nataliefong00/Tantramar_Marshes?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article: Tantramar Marshes
 * Link to the current version of the article: Tantramar Marshes

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi there,

This is a strong article draft. The Wildlife section and subsections (Keystone Species and Species at Risk) and ‘Plant Life’ are very informative and I like the titles. The initial ‘overview’ paragraph sets up the section well and gives a good background to the ecosystem/habitat that the species you later describe live in. After reading the article I feel I have a strong understanding of the plant and animal life in the Tantramar Marsh. Good job at addressing many rubric points at this point in your draft. For your use, these are the sections from the rubric I felt were well covered as the reader:


 * Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)
 * Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area
 * What visitors do there
 * Historical use of the now-protected area: what resources were harvested or extracted there (biological resources like fish, animals, plants, or timber); by who
 * How climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the protected area

Under the ‘National Wildlife Area Status’ I am also hoping you can expand on the  decision to make it a protected area. Can you explain its previous and current ‘status’ a bit more? Was it under great risk before, but now it is considered stable…? Is its status uncertain due to climate change? How is this being determined? Beyond this, it would be great to know more about how the marsh is managed, specifically the management plan and who was involved in making that plan. If Indigenous Peoples are or were involved at all this should be highlighted. If not, it would be good to address that point. Those are a couple things I was wondering, if you decide to flesh out your article any more.

In terms of general flow, the “Historical Uses” and “Present Uses” sections could use another look as there are some very long sentences that are difficult to follow. The content is great, but breaking up a few sentences would make it easier to read! The overall sections are grouped well, and they make sense. Thank you for your note that you will be working to combine the ‘Land and Water Use’ section with the existing material in Wikipedia. I agree that that grouping makes sense. Formatting wise, check the ‘National Wildlife Area Status’ section, I believe you have accidentally split paragraph 2 into a 3rd paragraph in the middle of the sentence. I found the tone is professional throughout the article, and matches with the existing material in the article.

Looking at your sources, I saw government websites, mostly peer-reviewed articles, and other reliable organizational sources such as the IUCN Red List. I noted that almost every sentence has a citation, which was great.

As I noted before, it would be good to look into current Indigenous Peoples perspective and involvement with the area (if possible, I know there may not always be information on it). This would bring forward their voices, especially if they are being neglected in current involvement with the Tantramar Marsh. Great job on your article draft! I am looking forward to seeing the final article.