User:Notjenna2001/Kanaka Creek Regional Park/Cyn4 sfu Peer Review

General info
Mango14406, Notjenna2001, Olipisacreta, Raspberrymint
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Notjenna2001/Kanaka Creek Regional Park
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Kanaka Creek Regional Park

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.)

The section that was strongest, I feel, was the Human Impact section. I felt like it really tied back to the rest of the article and I felt like it made the information I was reading in the other sections more relevant. What I learned from this was the different organizations involved in preserving and protecting the area and all the work involved with coordination and environmental factors leading to the situation (such as habitat loss).

The draft does address at least five of the relevant topics: being historical use of the protected area, information about the species in the area, information about first nations peoples who historically lived there, number of visitors, and whether first nations people were included in the process of managing the park.

I think the only thing missing from the article is maybe an etymology section - I noticed there is brief explanation of where the name Kanaka comes from, so perhaps that could be moved there then expanded on it?

The draft is very easy to follow and is quite clear. It's well sourced and I felt like if i wanted to know more about anything or assess the accuracy of a statement i could either click the direct link or follow the reference. Some areas I felt could use work was the consistency in explaining what certain things were. For example, KEEPS is first mentioned in the 'groups involved section' section with a proper link as well as what the abbreviation stands for. That is a good way to do it, but then in the next section KEEPS is brought up again, with a link and no abbreviation (that's fine), but at the end of the section its mentioned again, this time without a link but with the full abbreviation spelled out. I think when people are typically doing research on wikipedia they skip to relevant sections; so re-explaining KEEPS isn't a bad thing. But its a little inconsistent when the explanation is essentially done in two parts; a link to it at the start and then an explanation of what it is at the end of the section feels odd.

The other thing I noticed was in the 'wildlife' section. It is written as "As discussed by Pocock, Black Bears regularly..." feels very essay like and the wrong format for a wiki. The reader doesn't know who Pocock is and he isn't being introduced in the article. The source is already listed at the end properly so there is no need to bring up the author's name - readers can already see it if they want to know the source. I also noticed the source was dated in brackets as just "(2022)", but that can be confusing. Sometimes research is done in advanced and then a scientific article is published afterwards, so it could mean that the research is done in 2020 but the article is written in 2022, in which case the citation is on the article. Or it could mean the research was done in 2022, which is clearer to write it out as "as of 2022".

The other small thing was the organization of the history section. It might just be personal preference but i think its more natural to go in chronological order. The indigenous history section should be first because it happened first.

I think the work done on the wiki article is professional and neutral. It didn't feel like anything was being pushed and all felt very informative.

The draft is well sourced I feel, I don't think anything needs a source that doesn't already have one in the article. The only thing about sources is the citation errors should be fixed. I had these issues when i was making the citations as well - its very finicky when it tells you there is a date error but you can see the date clearly on your source but the wiki generator won't read it for some reason. I would try feeding the generator a direct link, and if that doesn't work/that is what you already did then try feeding the generator the name of the article instead. Hope that helps!

I felt the lead section is a bit bogged down, and some of it could be cut out into a geography section and then expanded upon. It felt like the section didn't give an adequate overview of the Kanaka Creek Regional Park, but instead overly explained the more touristy type features (though i see this is part of the article already in place as opposed to written by you guys). That stuff could probably be cut out and put into its own section instead.

The draft mentions that the Katzie First Nations is involved in creating the area, but does not note the involvement of Kwantlen First Nations in management of the area. It feels like there perspective isn't really explained in the article, or the particular goals of each group involved. For example, you could look up the cultural interests of the first nations groups mentioned in #4 of the citations list.