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

General info
SophiaSnobelen
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:SophiaSnobelen/Esquimalt Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Esquimalt Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content
 * The article has several clear subheadings such as History and Climate Change. It is good that you have also included Indigenous background as part of the History because readers can understand more on the Sanctuary in their perspectives, and learn to cherish the area just like they used to.
 * The whole structure of the article is clear and tidy. I did not get lost when I am reading it.
 * From your article, I have learned that the goals of the Sanctuary is to provide a safe heaven for migrating birds on Pacific Coast. With the impact of climate change, the future plan is to "include the management of shoreline sediment processes, infrastructure and service provisions, and the enhancement and protection of the ecological elements". Furthermore, I have also developed a deeper understanding on the diversity of species that lived there, such as birds, plants, and aquatic species.

Improvement in content and accuracy
 * I see that you have met the goals of addressing at least five of the topics. First, you have mentioned how First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory are included in the protected area by saying "the lagoon lies on the territory of the Esquimalt and the Songhees Nation, and nearby resides the Beecher Bay Nation".
 * Second, you have discussed about how climate change is predicted to affect the lagoon. For example, "through rising sea-levels and temperature, which causes a loss of habitat", and also this might alter the key ecosystem functions.
 * Third, I can see that you have included how First Nations were included in the process creating the lagoon, saying that the First Nation communities are working directly with the City of Colwood.
 * Forth, I noticed that the goals that led to the creation of the lagoon is to provide a safe area for migratory birds on the Pacific Coast.
 * Last, you have talked about the diversity of species and also species that are at risk.

Tone and Balance
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? So far, I feel like all the contents are relevant to your topic. You have added different new sections such as habitat management. You have discussed about the future plan. However, it is a little unclear that what the current plan is and maybe it will be better if you also include more details on how First Nation and the City of Colwood work together to manage the lagoon? So that, the readers can have a deeper understanding on their management processes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, many of the articles you have added into the article are fairly new. (From the 2000's)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think if you were to move the first paragraph of the "History" section under the subsection of "Indigenous Background" might make more sense considering that you are introducing the native Esquimalt and Songhees people who were connected to the lagoon. I also think that you might consider switching the orders of the section "Habitat Management" and "Objectives" because first knowing the goals of setting up the lagoon will gradually help the readers to develop interest on knowing more about the habitat management, and also provide them a better understanding.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, you have included information about the Aboriginal title and how it related to the Indigenous people which is a underrepresented topics.
 * Overall, despite the above suggestions I have made, I feel like this article is easy to read. The writing, sentence structure, and language are appropriate.


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the tone appears to be neutral, presenting facts and information about the lagoon. There is no evident emotional bias in the article and it strives to provide an objective account of a subjective matter. For example, when you say "The intertidal marsh is considered to be acting resilient against climate change", by adding the part "considered" make it sounds neutral. I do not feel any persuasive in favour of one position or away from another.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? like mentioned earlier in the content relevance question, when you said the future plan of the habitat management, I think you might also want to add some information about how they manage the lagoon currently so that the readers are able to understand what is happening right now, and to compare with the future plans in determining the improvements.

Organization

Sources and references
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is easy to read. The heading and subheading help the readers by providing guidance on what the sections are about.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the "Indigenous Background" subsection, you said "They also used the land the hunt, fish, and collect shellfish". There is a spelling error, the word "the" should be replaced by "to". The sentence should be "They also used the land to hunt, fish, and collect shellfish". Also, from the section "Plant and wildlife": "Other species, including river otters (Lontra canadensis) can also be found at the Esquimalt Lagoon. Bivalves, sand dollars, sea lettuce and eelgrass are also commonly found within the lagoon" was written in two sentence. However, I think it might be a bit duplicate. I suggest that you could rewrite it into one sentence: "River otters (Lontra canadensis) and various other species, including bivalves, sand dollars, sea lettuce, and eelgrass, are commonly found at the Esquimalt Lagoon".
 * Also, since you have added several new information on the lagoon, you might want to update the lead of the existing article. I see that you have mentioned " the lagoon is used by residents and tourists alike for outdoor activities such as kayaking and scuba diving, as well as watching its unique wildlife". However, in the lead section, you have only included the information that the lagoon is popular for birdwatching. I believed that if you also add the other activities on the lead section, it will seems more connected to your new edited version of article.

Overall impression
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they are either government official website or a journal article. For example, when you said "The lagoon lies on the territory of the Esquimalt and the Songhees Nation, and nearby resides the Beecher Bay Nation", you added citation after this statement to support it.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, you have a broad article from 2000s.
 * I have noticed that some of the words can be used as wikilinks. For example, in the section "Plant and wildlife", you said "The mudflats, eelgrass and estuary marsh habitats surrounding and within the lagoon provide foraging opportunities and nesting areas for both migratory and resident birds". You can insert wikilinks on the words "mudflats", "eelgrass", and "estuary marsh" which can provide a better and clear understandings for readers on these words: mudflats, eelgrass, and estuary marsh.


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? Yes, you have provided more information about the lagoon such as its history, species, and how people manage the habitat. In the existing article, it only includes a lead section which does not really provide any knowledgeable information for the readers. However, the new sections you have added give an opportunities for the readers to think and comprehend it.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adding the "species at risk" subsection is a key to the article as I think it is an important concept that readers should know about the lagoon and therefore, to further protect the species.