User:Rebecca.Clark126/Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area/Rainsoaked33 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

The group assigned to the Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rebecca.Clark126/Last_Mountain_Lake_National_Wildlife_Area?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area

Evaluation of general information and structure:
The introductory section gives a good idea of where the park is situated. This section could use a more descriptive title to make it easier to know what the section is about.

The land composition section is very informative for what types of habitat are within the park. This section has a couple areas that could use more details such as: what 1200 ha is dominated by native species? What are some examples of the migratory birds that are mentioned to use this area as a habitat and breeding ground?

The land use section could be split into previous and current uses, since right now this section has both of these topics together which is a bit hard to read through.

The history section explains the different aspects of the park's history well, I think that the emphasis on the park's history as a sanctuary is nice. I think that the paragraphs in this section could be re-ordered so that the oldest part of the park's history comes first. More information about the First Nations history within the park, such as what resources were gathered in the area, would be interesting.

The climate section is a bit difficult to read, this section could maybe be separated into two paragraphs one discussing temperature and the other discussing precipitation.

The wildlife section is nicely formatted, the use of lists makes it easy to read through the different types of species listed. Wikilinks could be added for many of the species listed in order to provide readers with further information about these species.

The regulations section is also nicely formatted, using lists clearly shows the park regulations.

Are at least five of the topics listed in the outline addressed?
Yes, the topics from this list are:

- description of the goals that led to the creation of the park (discussed in the history section)

- information about species found within the protected area (discussed in the wildlife section)

- Historical use of the area (discussed in the history section)

-information about the First Nations whose territories are included in the park (found in the introductory section)

-identification of species at risk in the area (discussed in the wildlife section)

More information could be added to address more of the topics listed in the assignment outline.
Some areas where more information would be useful would be:

- More information about the past and current inclusion of the First Nations, whose traditional territories are found within the park, in management decisions

- more information about how the climate in the park is predicted to change (the only information about the climate currently in the draft all relates to current trends)

- more information about how the boundaries of the park were decided

References section
Many of the citations have no title associated with them, which makes it difficult to know what the citation is. It appears that the "re-use citation" function in Wikipedia was not used because there are several citations that appear to be the same listed as different in the citations references list.

Overall
The overall tone of this draft is professional and neutral. I learned quite a bit about the different species and habitats that are present in the park. Prior to reading this draft I didn't know that this park is the oldest bird sanctuary in North America which was a really interesting fact to learn.

There appears to be several sources of information from Indigenous sources used alongside government sources in this article, which shows that this draft uses a variety of perspectives. More Indigenous sources could potentially be used in order to provide information about the historical uses of the park by Indigenous peoples.

Some information in the draft is already included in the Wikipedia article for this park. Since the Wikipedia article for this park is very short, this draft addresses many content gaps from the original article. This draft seems nicely balanced in most sections, with general information supported by a few more specific details. The History section could use a few more supporting details, particularly about Indigenous history, in order to make that section feel more complete. The climate section could use a bit more general information about climate trends in the area.