User:Nataliefong00/Tantramar Marshes/Ttaryn8 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 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 (if it exists)
 * Tantramar Marshes

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

After reviewing the Tantramar Marshes article draft, I have compiled feedback for the group. The article is strong in its structure. I liked the specific breakdown of sections into subsections. It made the article easy to understand and easy to navigate. I liked the specific addition of the keystone species section and their critical interactions with the ecosystem. For example, the Maritime shrew who keeps insects in check. This article taught me about the breeding grounds for several water fowl and it’s mixed fresh and salt water habitat. I also learned about the potential impacts of climate change on the sensitive freshwater ecosystems, if sea level rise occurs in the region. The article was successful in addressing more than five of the topics, including information on species found in the park, identify species at risk, issues/goals that led to creation, information about First Nations, what visitors do there, its historical use and climate change impacts. One comment I would make about the content is that I would want to know more about the regional Indigenous communities whose traditional territories aligns with the National Park. Were and are they involved in the decision making processes and management of the park? Did they oppose the creation of the park? Second, a map or graphic about the park would increase my understanding exponentially. As a visual learner seeing a map of the park’s boundaries and location would be a benefit. The articles writing, language, and sentence structure is easy to understand and does not add confusion. The tone is professional and neutral. I sense no personal injection of bias or underlying sway in one particular direction when the facts are being presented. In the “National Wildlife Area Status” section, there is one punctuation error. I believe there is a period segmenting a sentence. I bolded the change below (at end of quote).

Environment and Climate Change Canada manages the well being of the various species in Tintamarre and their long time goal is “to maintain and enhance habitat for native wildlife, with a priority given to waterfowl, wetland birds and species at risk,” as outlined in a 2016 report.

Cited within the article, there are a variety of sources from government sites, peer reviewed articles, and a CBC news article. From my review, all statements are cited. In the Bibliography at the end of the article, reference four is missing a journal, and reference twelve needs a title. Volume on each section and topic is similar and evenly spread, nothing is bogged down with details. I left the article with a broad coverage understanding. Finally, when reviewing equity, diversity, and inclusion, I would suggest including more from the viewpoint of regional Indigenous communities. Does the management plan include TEK? What is their perspective? I learned many things about the Tantramar Marshes from this article.