User:SophiaSnobelen/Esquimalt Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary/AnthonyTrasolini Peer Review

The group did a strong job in the History section of the article. I liked how you introduced the archeological evidence that proved that the native Esquimalt and Songhees have a longstanding connection to the Esquimalt Lagoon and Coburg Peninsula. This did an excellent job of setting up the Indigenous background section of the article. The addition of how the Esquimalt and Songhees peoples used the land and the variety of resources at their disposal for harvest was good information for the audience to learn about. The placement of these statements fits well within this section, along with the statement regarding European settlement following it. The Gold Rush statement did an excellent job showing its influence in bringing in settlers and the inevitable establishment of farms and industries. Furthermore, including the Esquimalt Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary part worked well within the article, considering it gives some context to the article's title and, ultimately, what this article is all about. It was a good introductory part that set up the rest of the article.

I also liked the climate change section. It did a great job of expressing how the sanctuary will be affected in the future, which is important. The statement about how the marsh is considered to be acting resilient against climate change was good, and how this could be affected by the rising sea levels. Including the scientific names of the bird species was a good touch and gave the reader another thing to think about. It could also be a good opportunity to do this with the other species mentioned throughout the article. But you all did a good job naming all the migratory birds that periodically inhabit this sanctuary. That was key information to include, considering this place is a migratory bird sanctuary.

I learned a lot from reading this article. After reading the article, I felt that I got a good grasp of how the sanctuary originated through Indigenous connection, European settlement and ultimately, the establishment of the sanctuary and how this sanctuary holds the objectives of providing a safe haven for migratory birds on the Pacific coast. Now in present time, I learned about the different species of migratory birds such as the Canada Geese (Branta cabadebsis), mallards (Anas okatyrhynchos), American wigeons (Mareca americana), northern pintails (A. acuta), greater and lesser scaups (Aythya marila/affinis), and hooded mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus), plus the other aquatic fauna and flora species such as cutthroat trout, Coho salmon, sealettuce, eel grass and more. Furthermore, I learned about the great blue heron, a bird species at risk and how they are considered under SARA. Finally, I got to understand how the future of the sanctuary could be vulnerable to climate change and the different processes that could be altered if the rate of climate change further worsens. And that got me thinking about how that could affect the variety of migratory bird species that rely on this sanctuary for habitat, nesting sites, food supply, and more.

You all did a good job at making sure to highlight five key sections of the article. The group did well at touching on what species can be found in the protected area: flora, fauna, land, and aquatic. This showed the readers the variety of the biodiversity that the sanctuary holds. The group also Identified a species at risk in the protected area: the great blue heron. While this was key to add to the article, more information about possible population trends or if the species is recovering would be useful to include. There was good Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territories are included in the protected area. As previously stated, I liked how you all had this within the paper's History portion and Indigenous background sections. You all did a great job communicating how Indigenous peoples connected with the land and the different resources they used and touched on the Aboriginal title and the Douglas treaty. As previously stated, you all did well at connecting on how climate change is predicted to affect the ecology of the protected area and how climate change will alter the sanctuary's natural processes and potential future altercations with migratory birds and other flora and fauna. You all did well on touching on the issues/goals that led to the creation of the protected area and how the sanctuary is providing a safe haven for migratory birds on the Pacific coast. Some background information about why they set this objective could be helpful so that the audience could understand why this sanctuary is so important to migratory birds and other species.

While you all did a great job tackling different sections related to the sanctuary, expanding on your ideas for the objectives and the species at risk section would be helpful. While both had good points, more information would add context for readers. For objectives, it would be beneficial to add why these objectives were put in place and why the sanctuary is so important to migratory bird populations and other species. Try finding information on whether these objectives have been successful or not. Has the sanctuary reached its goals? All of this could be helpful for readers to understand why the sanctuary is important and deserves recognition. For the species at risk section, I thought it was great that you all included that the great blue heron was at risk and how it ranked under SARA, but I think it would be beneficial to include the trends or what led to this species being at risk in the first place. Has the species bounced back? Or has there been any progress in its recovery process? How is the sanctuary benefitting the species? Readers may ask these questions, so it could be beneficial to address some of these possible questions to provide context.

Furthermore, I liked how you all linked many words to provide context for the group or thing you discussed, but this should be more consistent throughout the article. For example, for the plants and wildlife section, it would be helpful to link all of the migratory bird species, plus the other flora and fauna mentioned under the section. This can help your readers when they may not know what one kind of animal is, and they want to quickly see what it looks like, what family it comes from, etc. This linking of words can be done throughout the entire article, which could greatly benefit the article. Punctuation-wise, the article was very well done; there was one sentence that I noticed that there was no period after it (The Gold Rush of 1858 brought an influx of settlers to the region, leading to the establishment of farms and industries). But other than that, well done.

After reading the group's article, the writing, language, and sentence structure were well done. There was not any point where I needed clarification when trying to understand the content or its accuracy. It was a very smooth read; the sentences were all suitable lengths, the writing was clear and concise, and the language was straightforward. I also understood most of the words throughout the paper, especially with the context provided by the links. As previously mentioned, linking more words consistently throughout the article would benefit others.

The structure of your article is pretty well done. I do think that adding an introduction/lead would be beneficial. Including a lead will set up your paper, and you could include the objectives either within the lead or as a section right under the lead. This could allow better flow for your readers when checking out your article. Furthermore, the Plant and Wildlife and Species at Risk section should be before your Habitat Management and Climate Change sections. I say this because you have an opportunity to explain how habitat management can help the variety of species within the park. It would be helpful for the reader to know what species are in the sanctuary before knowing how they can be managed and how management helps them. You all could do the same thing with climate change and explain how climate change will affect the variety of species in the sanctuary. Similar to habitat management, it would be helpful for the reader to know the species before you talk about how they will be affected. Additionally, having all headings in the same sized font, boldness, etc, would be beneficial. This will make your article look more polished and professional. You all did an excellent job clarifying which sentences are grouped into paragraphs or subsections. As I previously mentioned, you all did very well with the sentence structures and creating new paragraphs or sentences for each sub-part of every section.

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, you all did an exceptional job keeping the writing and tone professional and neutral. You all got straight to the point in every single section. You did well at purely providing information on the topic, without expressing any personal biases or unprofessionalism with unneeded comments. You all made sure that the content was plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific, and that made for a really good read. I came out of the article with a neutral view of the sanctuary. You all provided a good amount of sources for this article. Not only at a reasonable amount, but the sources were of all good quality, which is great for the credibility of your statements within the article. Every source is also available for everybody, which is also key for credibility reasons, so very well done on that aspect.

You all did a good job balancing the work across all sections. I liked how all sections were fairly evenly worded and expressed, par the species at risk section. It was good that you all didn't heavily favour one section compared to others. You all also did a good job of targeting the topic's most important and notable aspects. When I think of reading about a migratory bird sanctuary, I instantly think about how and when the sanctuary opened, what the objectives are, the kind of migratory birds that use the sanctuary, and other ecological ideas and climate change. And I got answers to all of those questions while reading the paper. Regarding content with the sections, I thought you all did well staying consistent to the point you were trying to get across and didn't just drown the article in crazy detail. Being straight to the point allowed me, as the reader, to understand the content more easily as I was not thinking about other details that could be classified as jargon.

In terms of including all relevant perspectives, you all did very well to ensure that multiple perspectives were considered within the article. For starters, the description of how the land and its importance was used by Indigenous peoples and their involvement within the sanctuary in terms of habitat management. I also thought that the climate change, plant and wildlife and species of risk sections brought forward a conservation and management perspective. I think it could be beneficial to bring a possible recreation perspective to the sanctuary, if there is any at all. And maybe you all could figure out whether proceeds from recreational profit would go towards investing in further conservation and management within the sanctuary. If there is no recreation aspect, including that in the article could also be beneficial, and you can comment on why this is the case. Including an economic perspective could also work. Like how is the sanctuary funded? Are Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) or the Canadian government supporting the sanctuary in any way? These perspectives are not completely necessary for the article, considering you all include the most important ones for a sanctuary, but they are suggestions that could work.

All the best,

Anthony

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)