User:REMaccount-Mike/Pinecone Burke Provincial Park/Bmac54 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

REMaccount-Mike (Pinecone Burke Provincial Park group)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:REMaccount-Mike/Pinecone_Burke_Provincial_Park?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pinecone Burke Provincial Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
The references were done very well and were quite extensive with 15 sources. All sources are viable, coming from professional websites that have valuable information on the park. Aspects and understanding of ecology were talked about and very present in this article; the group also made a point to include the indigenous perspective on the usage of the park, which is very beneficial for those who look at the article because it expands ones knowledge and history of the traditional land that Pinecone Burke Provincial Park is on. Perhaps try expanding the, "Visitors and What They Do," section, as in giving more insight on some of the scenery and specific places in the park that will be valuable for prospecting visitors. Organization of the topics should be addressed to, just making the article flow and easier to follow for those reading it. Also, make sure that every member has the same name for the park because I noticed that some people are calling it "Pinecone Burke Mountain Provincial Park", and some are calling it "Pinecone Burke Provincial Park". Other than the flow of the article and the misnaming, this article was very well written with obvious attention to grammar and punctuation. Information on endemic species was shared in the "Wildlife and Plant Life Found in Pinecone Burke Provincial Park" section. This section definitely taught me something new about this park, I had no idea that so many different and important species live in the environment. I would try expanding this section, though, and maybe mentioning how some of these species benefit the health of the park, and how the park benefits the health of the species. This article also taught me that although the park is beautiful and there are many efforts being made to upkeep it and make it more accessible to the public, it is also a relatively unpopular park. From learning this, I have decided that I want to visit this park. In the Park Boundaries section, why did the provincial government choose these boundaries for the park? What does the decision of the boundaries have to do with conservation? This group did include more than five of the topics listed in the rubric, and does a really good job of providing in depth research on these topic, although I feel that it would be beneficial to include a climate change section that describes how the park is being affected. I read the tone in this article to informative, neutral, and professional. No bias or aggression is present. Overall, I feel that this group did a very good job on writing an article about a less-known park. Research seems extensive and visible care has gone into the article.