User:Spearstrike/Skwelwil'em Squamish Estuary Wildlife Management Area/Zlillico Peer Review

General info
(Zlillico)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spearstrike/Skwelwil%27em_Squamish_Estuary_Wildlife_Management_Area/Zlillico_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Skwelwil'em Squamish Estuary Wildlife Management Area

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.)

I think that the information that is gathered is good, I think to make it easier to follow along would be to change the headings to relate more to what is being discussed. Such as "History" instead of "Establishment" because I think that the information is summing up the historical use of the area and establishment is intertwined in with that.

I think that each paragraph has a good introductory sentence, but in geography, it seems separated like a different paragraph, just make a singular paragraph to help with the flow.

I like how you had listed out some of the terrestrial mammals in the wildlife section, I want to know more about the avian section. Like which parts of the estuary do the birds use and why? What special features of the estuary make it appealing to the birds?

I think something I would like to know more about would be the First Nations in the area, their history, the uses, how they play a role in the current estuary?

I think one critical element that can be included are some activities for the visitors in the area and climate change and how it is predicted to change the area.

Overall I think that it is a good foundation, the tone is very neutral, the structure of the article seems to be easy and logical to follow, but I think there is a lot of room to expand on and to include more detail. I also noticed that all of the sources are from government websites or a PDF, I think including more peer-reviewed academic articles to gather more information would help build a more detailed Wikipedia page.