User:Springfrog32/Sequoia National Park/MANAT33Gal Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Springfrog32)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Springfrog32/Sequoia_National_Park?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sequoia National Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think you have a very strong starting draft. There was a lot of valuable information that was relevant and necessary to improve the original/current article and add in the perspectives of groups not previously mentioned (as you stated was the goal). I also really liked the neutral tone that you took thought this section because it made for a very professional and trustworthy piece without bias. Furthermore, I think the writing style is very good for a Wikipedia article in terms of sentence structure and grammar. It is easy to read and very clear. I do think there are some small changes that could be made like adding a couple periods and commas where necessary.

As for some of the ways your drafted section could be improved, I think it really just comes down to rounding out a few ideas by adding in a little more information on the topic (which will come with more research and collection of sources) and maybe making a few structural changes to enhance the flow of the section.

To start, I am a little confused on the last sentence in the first paragraph. It definitely pertains to the second paragraph but seems a little disjointed and out of place at the end of that first section. Furthermore, it is unclear what the significance is in terms of the broader timeline. I think it might be beneficial to detail some of the history between the decimation of the Native Americans and the arrival of Tharp, including his motivations for settling in this particular area and his initial goals. This would help connect the first and second paragraphs and make it flow a little better.

Additionally, I think the section on the Buffalo Soldiers could be expanded to detail more of their involvement and contributions to the function of the park. Maybe think about adding in a sentence or two on the what exactly the troops did or if there is any information on how they uniquely impacted the park shedding light on the significance of it being a group of African Americans. Also, because it is a section on human impact, maybe adding more of the affect the Indigenous people had on managing the park and how that changed over the course of shifting management.

Finally, I think you could try and clarify the final paragraph on the Mineral King Mining District. I think the part about Disney trying to use it for development is a very good add, but it feels like it gets a little off topic in the explanation of how the area was named. Mainly because the rest of the section talks about how the forest was handled by people, I don't think it is exactly necessary to add that bit in, but more importantly, I think this section could benefit again from a little more information on the significance of the conflicts between people trying to develop areas of the park and the protection of the forest. Basically just adding in a few quick words on why and how the park service or organization in charge was able to prevent big companies like Disney from coopting the area. Or alternatively, just get into more of the specifics of who was involved in that particular case and any other silent figures who may have contributed but failed to be mentioned/recognized.

In the draft, I added a few small grammatical fixes but nothing major.

Again, very strong initial draft and great job bringing to light some of the hidden figures who contributed to the history of the forest/park. I think you guys are on the right track to creating an article that is more well-rounded and complete, so congratulations and I look forward to seeing the final product.