User:Tardis420/Serpentine Wildlife Management Area/GreysonZed Peer Review

General info
Tardis420/Serpentine Wildlife Management Area
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Tardis420/Serpentine Wildlife Management Area
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Content
=== The article covers a lot of topics, including indigenous people, the area and boundary of the protected area, the species and endangered animals in this area, the impact of climate changes, goals of the land-conservative area and amenities. The large range of topics is very good and gives readers a basic idea about the protected area. Some parts are deeply discussed like species and provide us with a lot of information. I feel like other parts can go further and show readers a more detailed explanation. The management and climate part can get more information from the government management guidance and other resources related to climate change. The species part is very detailed and would be better if there could be information about the population trend. Generally, every part is related to the main topic and they are classified well. ===

The tone is in a good way and it's neutral not showing a sense of judgement. It's just providing information in an objective way.
=== Each part is well balanced and they do not overlap with each other or some part covers too many topics while other do not. But I really think the structure of the article can be reorganized so the readers can get a sense of the main theme of the article, also letting people feel that each part is related to one another. ===

Sources and References
=== The References are very good. The sources are very reliable. They are all from government report or government website so they are very reliable. The amount of references is also great, 23 references are cited providing a lot of reliable information. It will be wonderful if more detailed information can be shown to the readers. ===

Guiding questions:
=== Some part of the article is missing so it's hard to give a general conclusion, but the existing part is good and not overlapping. Probably the species and endangered animals parts can be organized into a large section under species, and put the impact of climate into a different area, so the structure can be more clearly (cause I'm a little confused in the beginning, but this could be only me) ===

Overall impressions
=== Generally, it's a very good article and shows a lot of great ideas from different resources. The readers can have a basic understanding of the protected area and know a lot about the species in this area. The article would be better if it's finished and some parts can be reorganized. Besides, some aspects need to be explored more and give readers more information about this park. This is a good and very promising article. I believe it will be great if it's finished. ===