User:Rebecca.Clark126/Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area/Osama Hakeem Qamar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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 strongest points of your article according to me are the information you have including the history of the national park, territorial acknowledgement, and composition of the land. Making Land acknowledgments was a great move as it represents the underrepresented communities that have been indigenous to this land. However, I would like you to expand more upon the indigenous history of this location. Create subsections within your land composition talking about each terrain separately, doing this will help you add more information and improve the layout of the article. You can add more information on how land use is helpful for the species residing here and how it positively or negatively impacts them.

Although you covered 5 points from the “address at least five of the following topics” you haven’t addressed key ecological aspects that could be essential to this article like talking about flora, species at risk, highlighting endemic species, and biotic and abiotic threats. Your article does mention information from the point I have highlighted but either there is a lack of information on these topics or a specific section to address them.

The article is on Last Mountain Lake (NWA), but you haven’t mentioned any aquatic species whether it be flora or fauna. This article also lacks content on the ecological aspects of the NWA which is the purpose of our Wikipedia article. Just to elaborate more on this you have more content on the history and land than ecology on that land, which parts of it are under threat, and how and why they are threatened. You are also missing out on the type of flora on the site.

Another suggestion I have based on your article is to rethink the structure like the history section comes in between land use and climate, try to create more sections addressing a specific type of information, and create subsections within those sections to give structure to the article and this also make it easier to access and understand information. Add some context to the facts and statistics you have mentioned throughout the article, as a reader, I see more facts and numbers than the information I can read and learn from. Lastly, I have noticed there is a sudden transition from paragraphs to bullet points this may be the need of the article to present information in bullet points but if you can create a subsection for those bullet points it will give more clarity to the reader and your structure, currently, it does not reflect the point you’re trying to make and confused me as a reader.

The tone of your article is confusing in some sections where there are just statistics but remains neutral throughout the article. A major setback for me was the lack of peer-reviewed articles and the use of unsuitable sources for academic articles. There is a lacking of variety of sources you have used in the article, all your references come from 6-8 sources. Try checking out references on the websites you have sourced from I really liked you created a hyperlink for words that require the reader to look up the definition, try doing this throughout the article.