User:Ttaryn8/Wapusk National Park/BC604 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ttaryn8


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ttaryn8/Wapusk_National_Park?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template#cite_note-:11-25
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Wapusk National Park

Peer Review
The article structure you’ve used and the way it integrates into the rubric criteria makes me realize we have a lot of work to do on our article. I’m glad we got your group to review! The content section of the rubric requires at least 5 points be covered in the article. I identified the following points which are covered in the article for assignment credit. I’ll go through each of the points I identified and provide positive feedback and constructive criticism for each.

 * How the boundaries and size of the protected area were decided

This was clearly identified in the lead and boundaries sections. The boundaries section discusses how the Churchill Management Area borders the park as well as Hudson’s Bay – is there any more information about how the rest of the boundary was established? Excellent information has been provided about the inter-biome transitional zones!

 * Information about what species can be found in the protected area (plants, animals, other species)

Polar Bears, Caribou are discussed throughout. Discussion of climate change and forest fires destroying lichen, and the long-time frame required for this resource to recover, do well to illustrate the impact on Caribou. Excellent information about the lesser snow geese population growth and the impact on the ecology. Information which could be added is the status of Caribou and Polar Bears since they are focal points – are they protected under SARA for instance?

 * Information about First Nations whose traditional and ancestral territory/ies are included in the protected area

This section is thorough. A minor suggestion is the title of the book written in 2008, although it is cited and very easily looked up. I wanted to know the title without disrupting my flow of reading the article. Good information about the co-management frustrations with Indigenous communities impacted by logistical challenges due to the remote nature of the park.

 * Identification of any species at risk in the protected area, and information about their population trends, if available

This section had lots of very good information and sources. I’m so conditioned to industrial agriculture I was somewhat surprised the park would have a naturally occurring cranberries. The trend illustrated in Caribou is a concerning one. Clarification on the status of Caribou would be valuable, e.g. what legal protections for Caribou exist or what does COSEWIC say of Caribou in the park. (Polar Bears would be valuable too as they’re highlighted in the article).

''' * Historical use of the now-protected area: what resources were harvested or extracted there (biological resources like fish, animals, plants, or timber; physical resources like rock or oil), how much, when, and by who? How did this affect the formation of the protected area?'''

This was my favourite section. The geologic description of the area, combined with the biome transition information provided earlier, really illustrated the park for me. It gave me the idea to include more geologic information in my own article. There was a richness of information in this section I was surprised by, quite a range from the Indigenous place name for bogs to rocket testing. One thing I was looking for more information one is the history of logging in the area, even if limited. Logging would be worth mentioning in the context of habitat because of how destructive it may be.

General discussion

I was very impressed by your work, and it will inspire me to elevate my own. All hyperlinks work and are connected to article material. Sources are neutral and unbiased as is the article narrative. As expected of a draft there exist some grammatical and typographical errors which are quite minor and should be easily remedied prior to submission. One specific sentence I had to re-read was in the population trend section regarding Caribou population estimates (using the language population estimates may be more accurate as well). Reading of the article flowed well in reading. Examining the heading arrangement, I am wanting History and Boundaries to be more closely grouped, as the historical context and the boundaries of the park are related to each other in my mind. Naturally traditional Indigenous information should probably be the first heading as First Nations use of the area preceded the park. I think some more information about Indigenous and Crown relationships in the area would be valuable context for the article and frame the park appropriately in the context of colonialism.