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

General info
67773skies, FinnJackart, The Chris Happy
 * 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

Lead

 * Lead has information not mentioned later on in article (touches on state management but does not mention it later on)
 * Lead is relatively concise however has information perhaps better suited as subsections later in the article (for example, the three small units could be put under geography/topography)
 * Perhaps try merging the first 2 sentences in the lead into 1?

Content

 * Content looks good, perhaps group together the species information (topography is sandwiched in between, maybe leave that for last or put it first)
 * Maybe missing some other topics other than just species information (like Indigenous involvement, perhaps go deeper into the management, or even give management it's own heading)

Tone and Balance

 * Content is neutral, does not seem to have any sort of ideological boundaries or narratives being pushed
 * Content is most likely as up to date as possible

Sources and References

 * Good list of sources, lots of governments & academic journals cited, no issues
 * Problem noticed with footnotes - footnotes are supposed to come after punctuation, not before it - like this, not this . (At least in APA)
 * Links tested, do work

Organization

 * Good and clear content, easy to read and gives concise information
 * One issue I noticed was that in one of the lines in the lead: "... and managed by the Canadian government department Environment and Climate Change Canada." - perhaps it can be re-written as "... and managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada." It feels a lot more concise and less clunky to read.
 * Again, perhaps put topography first or last to create a sense of continuity among general content