User:Ttaryn8/Wapusk National Park/More888 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ttaryn8, Avaryvinciguerra, Magan Dayal, Lilu jawien

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ttaryn8/Wapusk_National_Park?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
 Lead 
 * Your lead article is off to a very good start, with new additions covering First Nations, geographic information, impacts of climate change and tourists. The words are very concise and the important information is basically covered. One thing I might add is a description of the "History" section, as it also seems to contain quite a bit of information. Overall, a very good lead!

 Content 


 * The new additions cover many of the aspects mentioned in the lead, for example, First Nations, issues posed by climate change, detailed definition of boundaries and tourism. This is great. These contents are very substantial and are closely related to the topic of ecology. I like the information in the climate change and history section, which gave me inspiration for my own work.

 Tone and Balance 


 * All the sentences in sandbox are written professionally and in a neutral tone.

 Sources and References 


 * The article uses a lot of resources, and I picked a few at random to review and the links all work well. Most of the ones I look at are from government websites, and very few peer-reviewed articles, which are both very credible, and have been updated recently as well. A possible suggestion is to try to select some articles written by different authors, possibly with a more comprehensive view.

 Organization and structure 


 * The overall structure of the article is good, without grammar or spelling mistakes. Most of the content is concise and easy to read, and relatively speaking, the First Nations part is a bit cumbersome and difficult for me to understand quickly. If trying to describe it in more concise and simple language, it will be more reader friendly.

 Overall Impressions 


 * Overall a very good article! Compared with the original wiki, a lot of informational sections have been added. Most of them are simple and easy to understand, and reflect the content learned in class, making more readers can have a better understanding of the park from an ecological point of view. I believe that if you make some small changes, such as the history part in the lead or the wording of the First Nations part, the whole article would be better. Looking forward to seeing the revised version!