User:The Chris Happy/Qualicum National Wildlife Area/Fukhunglie Peer Review

General info
The Chris Happy, 67773skies, FinnJackart
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:The Chris Happy/Qualicum National Wildlife Area
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Qualicum National Wildlife Area

Evaluate the drafted changes
Comparing it to the current version of the article, this draft is better in a lot of ways; however, it does have some flaw. I will proceed by separating each points per subsection.

Lead
The lead section could use a little trimming in terms of the amount of content it has compared to the rest of the article. The first paragraph is well written in my opinion. The paragraph covers the general information and also mentioned a major section of the article. The second paragraph, however, is overdetailed and can be put somewhere else in the article - maybe place them in the topography section but change the name of the section to something that would include all the information and switch the topography section with the species section to make the article flow better. The same goes with the third paragraph, but for this paragraph, putting it in a new section might be a better choice. Overall, the lead section has room for improvement, but I think this draft's lead is better than my own in terms of covering the whole article.

Content Relevance and Tone
Looking at the references, I found that most of the sources are quite recent except for three sources that dates back to the 1900s. I would suggest finding a more recent source that covers similar topic or confirm that the information from the source is still up to date. For example, from the last section, "These oaks are rapidly dwindling due to habitat loss in many of the places they are found," does this phenomenon still a threat to this day? Other than the three content source that is potentially not up-to-date, the rest of the content I find to be relevant to the topic and neutral.

Source
In my opinion, the content represents the sources pretty well. There might be some issues with plagiarism that I suspect to exist (e.g., "The ecosystems are thought to have upwards of a hundred plant and animal species. The Garry Oaks are drought resistant plants with leaves that prevent a lot of water loss."), but I am not confident enough to be completely sure. There are also several sentences that are missing reference to the source.

As mentioned in the previous section, three out of 14 sources are potentially out of date; however, I also found two of the sources comes from news pages that might induce questions about the sources' reliability. Perhaps there might be some peer-reviewed articles that are related to said news article and can replace the news article? That would solidify the source reliability of this draft.

Overall, although a small portion of the source requires reevaluation, I am quite impressed by how many sources this article has. The source diversity is also great.

Content Organization
I find the majority of the draft is very well-organized and well-written except for the last section. The first and second sentence of the of the "Endangered Species" section looks very out of place without enough context. It took a while for me to process the information from the second sentence. I do not want to say that the information is irrelevant because I have not researched deep enough into the topic, but if it is relevant, I think the second sentence need a little bit more context or a different phrasing.

I also find that the transition from the second sentence to the rest of the paragraph seems rough. Although I do understand that this is still a draft, I suggest putting a note in this draft for this section to avoid missing this part in the final draft.

Overall Impression
I think this draft is a massive improvement for the current version of the article. The Lead and the last section of the draft might have room for improvement. I am not sure about source availability, but if possible, expanding the content for each section might be a good focus of improvement too. Several ideas for improvement also came to me for my team's article while I am evaluating this draft, so I need to thank you for that.