User:REMaccount-Mike/Pinecone Burke Provincial Park/Tgtg1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(REMaccount-Mike/Pinecone Burke Provincial Park)


 * 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
(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.)

Word use and grammar


 * Paragraph 1:
 * In third sentence, "as" and "labelled" should be switched and there is a comma splice
 * There is a capital in the last sentence where there shouldn't be one
 * I noticed a few times that plural was used when singular should have been used, and vice versa. For example, with "parks operations", it should just read as "park". And, with "goals of the development plan is", "is" should be "were".
 * To me, reading this paragraph felt a bit awkward. I would suggest restructuring some of the sentences for easier reading and removing unnecessary words (e.g., "itself", "proactively").
 * I would also suggest shortening this section to make it more concise and read more smoothly.
 * Paragraph 2:
 * The third sentence sounds a bit redundant to me
 * With "boundaries of Pinecone Burke Provincial Park is", "is" should be "are"
 * I would suggest restructuring some of the sentences for easier reading and removing unnecessary words
 * I would also suggest shuffling the sentences around so that you address the park size and boundaries all at once and then move onto how to access the park.
 * Paragraph 3;
 * "According to the BC Parks" Is not needed if you have a citation
 * Check grammar and punctuation- I found some mistakes
 * Sentence 2 and 3 could be combined
 * I would replace "water" in "water species" with something like "marine".
 * I would suggest removing unnecessary words and reducing sentences to be more concise (e.g., sentence 10)
 * Sentence 9 is not a complete sentence- its missing a predicate
 * With "that are located in Pinecone Burke Mountain Provincial Park", I would suggest removing it altogether because it sounds a bit redundant.
 * Sentences 11 and 12 can be combined
 * Paragraph 4:
 * Check punctuation
 * I would suggest restructuring some of the sentences for easier reading and removing unnecessary words
 * I would consider using the term "territories" instead of "boundaries" in sentence 1 ("First Nation boundaries") because First Nation communities and territories generally do not have exact borders and boundaries
 * Paragraph 5:
 * This could just be me but I think the word "ascend" sounds a bit awkward in this context. Personally, I might replace it with "hike" or something similar.
 * Check grammar and punctuation
 * Paragraph 6:
 * Avoid using too many of the same word

Citation and paraphrasing


 * Paragraph 1:
 * "the western shore of Pitt Lake (the largest freshwater tidal lake in North America" - this needs to be either rewritten and paraphrased or cited with quotation marks otherwise its considered plagiarism
 * "The Development of the Draft Management Plans " - I know this is the name of the stage but I believe it either also needs quotation marks or to be rewritten and paraphrased. However, I'm not sure if this is necessary information for the article so it could probably be removed
 * Paragraph 2:
 * The last half of this paragraph requires a citation
 * Paragraph 3:
 * Link 5 does not work


 * In general:
 * You've included lots of sources so that is great!
 * I'm not sure how many peer-reviewed sources or academic articles are available for your park but I would suggest including some if you can
 * Furthermore, I found the academic viewpoint to be a bit neglected
 * Also, I know sometimes each sentence requires a citation, but in the wiki modules they mentioned that one citation per paragraph is usually sufficient. I'm not sure which option is correct but maybe consider citing a bit less (when it's the same article being used, like in paragraph 5)

Content


 * Paragraph 1:
 * Covers one topic point well: Description of the issues/goals that led to the creation of the protected area
 * Touches on two other topic points but these should be expanded on: 1) How the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided and 2) Whether the goals that led to the creation of the protected area are being met, and how this is being measured
 * If you're going to use these last 2 as part of your 5 content topics, make sure to answer the question directly and in more detail

Other
 * Paragraph 2:
 * I find some of the content in this section confusing. In this paragraph it says that the BC government established the park as protected. But, in the paragraph above, it says the park was established as protected because of the "Friends of Burke Mountain". Did the Friends of Burke Mountain influence the governments decision? I think this should be clarified and could be explained in the same paragraph.
 * The location of the park is described differently from the location already listed on wikipedia.
 * This section touched again on: How the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided.
 * However, I think more information is needed about the decision making process.
 * Paragraph 3:
 * What are the amphibian species that you mentioned?
 * It would be nice to know more about who has labelled the "sensitive" or "vulnerable" species and what this label means. For example, are these species endemic?
 * Overall, I definitely felt like I learned most of the different types of animals, fish and plant species that live in the park. Good job!
 * This paragraph sufficiently covers the section: Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)
 * This paragraph touches on: Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available.
 * However, a bit more information regarding this could be useful.
 * Paragraph 4
 * Consider merging the boundaries part of this paragraph with similar boundary concepts in the paragraphs above
 * Instead of saying "for many years prior" I would expand on exactly how many years First Nations have been there because "many years" sounds like a decade or two when they've probably been there for thousands of years
 * Some of the information in this section about the management of the park is repeated in above sections. I would consider combining this information in one place.
 * Overall, I feel like I got a good understanding of which First Nations groups live in that area and how they are included in the management of the park. Good job!
 * This section covers the topic points: 1) Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area, 2) Whether First Nations were included in the process creating the protected area, or whether they supported the creation of the protected area, and 3) 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
 * Paragraph 5:
 * The content in the last sentence was already mentioned in the paragraphs above. However, I really liked the way you worded it.
 * This section covers the topic: Historical use of the now-protected area: what resources were harvested or extracted there (biological resources like fish, animals, plants, or timber; physical resources like rock or oil), how much, when, and by who? How did this affect the formation of the protected area?
 * I thought you did a great job covering all the important concepts of this topic point
 * Paragraph 6:
 * This section partly covers the topic: The number of visitors to the protected area, and what they do there.
 * However, it is missing information about how many visitors there are.
 * In general:
 * You covered at 6 of the 10 topics sufficiently and touched on others. Well done!
 * I'd suggest collaborating a bit more to make sure you don't have any duplicate information in your paragraphs


 * Good neutral tone!
 * I thought you guys did a great job covering all the important points and avoiding unnecessary information
 * What I learned:
 * the Friends of Burke Mountain helped to make a protected area
 * the park historically and currently is being conserved
 * First Nations did not have a say in the park establishment
 * Which First Nations reside in the park and how they historically used the land
 * What types of animals, plants and fish are in the park
 * Some at-risk species
 * How the park is being managed now
 * The park boundaries
 * and common uses of the park
 * The article could use a new lead that incorporates your newly added information

Great work and good luck!