User:Rebecca.Clark126/Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area/Tito tw13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Clamatochowder, Giouge, Rebecca.Clark126


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rebecca.Clark126/Last_Mountain_Lake_National_Wildlife_Area?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
The strong points in this draft are that it is rich in content, has a strong set of reputable sources, and it concisely answers the criteria of this assignment within great detail. The organization of the article is also something to take note of, as each individual section/subsection is in a great consequent order to allow this draft to be very reader-friendly, while also being very informative considering the amount of information it entails over an array of topics. .

Considering that the currant Wikipedia article has very little information to it, I have learned a great deal of information regarding Last Mountain Lake NWA.

I would raise a bit of criticism over the organization aspect of the Wildlife and Regulations sections respectively, as I feel the bullet-point form that it is in is not the most reader friendly way to list the information, more specifically in the Regulations section. This is not as big of an issue in the Wildlife section, as it would allow ease for people to click on the animal's name and be taken to that animals own Wikipedia page. Along with that, I noticed that the draft does not adequately use the different headers, sections, and subsections to properly separate the different sections.

I do not feel as if this article has any gaps in it, with each section more or less leading into the following one. As well as the language in the article being understandable without being too simple, and having good flow throughout the sections.

The draft contains many reputable sources in the citations, with many being government sites; however, the references section is not very well organized. Many references are repeated and are not properly cited, as the references section is just full of links, repeated 3+ times over, with no other information tailored to the source. Besides that, the sources are all strong, reliable sources which all relate to the article quite well.

The tone of the article is good, follows all the Wikipedia guidelines and rules.

There are no issues of equity, inclusion and diversity.

Only changes that need to be made is some minor grammatical errors and cleaning up the references section.

Overall, this article is very well done, great job!