User:SophiaSnobelen/Esquimalt Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary/Jules 356 Peer Review

General info
User: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)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article on Esquimalt's Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary does a proficient job in offering a broad overview of the area; concisely addressing many of it's major features as well as background.

Though I have traveled through the area multiple times I was not aware of its history or significance to migratory birds.

The article does well to mention species at risk in the area (the Blue Heron), Endemic species, the role that indigenous groups have in the area's current operation, what the historical use of the now-protected area was, and how climate change will likely affect the area.

An area of growth within the article is grammar and succinctness. For example, the last sentence in the second paragraph within Indigenous Background is run-on. Likewise photos, diagrams, and maps would greatly further the readers comprehension of where the area is and what it has to offer,

The organization both on the macro and micro scale was clean, ideas and thoughts are sectioned off appropriately.

Tone is not a major issue in the article, but it might do the authors well to remember to speak as impartially as they can. At the sake of coming across rude the article takes the tone of a vacation brochure occasionally.

More and different types of academic peer reviewed literature would definitely benefit this article. Currently there is only one peer reviewed article, another that could be used is "Temperature Variations in Esquimalt Lagoon-A Small Landlocked Body of Water Subject to Tidal Flushing".

the articles is well balance between breadth and depth and does well by including a diversity of opinions.

Guiding questions:
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Lacks an introductory paragraph or sentence

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, majority of information is from 2010 onwards
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, especially in the history section
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, for the amount of content per section, each section has a proportionate number of sources
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * from source (5) it is mentioned "The Esquimalt Lagoon is used by various bird species year round, including many gulls, ducks and shorebirds." However there are no mentions of "gulls, ducks and shorebirds" anywhere in the cited document
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, as mentioned all are from 2007 onwards
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * there could be more emphasis on indigenous histories given in the history section as there are source

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * intext citations should be added before the period
 * more attention can be given to making sentences flow within paragraphs, as opposed to having unlinked ideas place next to each other.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * none easily found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no, none

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * yes, but there is only one peer reviewed article, here is another that you could use "Temperature Variations in Esquimalt Lagoon-A Small Landlocked Body of Water Subject to Tidal Flushing"
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * there is a mix of grey literature, academic articles, and public websites
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * this could be done a lot more especially when it comes to listing the plants and wildlife

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * a wide range of different sources and types of information
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * the quality of the writing and the usage of more academic articles and less websites