User:Ttaryn8/Wapusk National Park/Rowankoe 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)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wapusk_National_Park

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall a good article, the choices of what topics to cover feel like the were well chosen and explained. The "Indigenous Communities and Wapusk National Park," "Climate Change/ Habitat Loss," and "Tourism" sections were especially well done and felt like they covered the important information without overcomplicating the topics. I also learned of the slow growth and importance of lichen, as well as the more specific effect climate change on this ecosystem. The focus on indigenous communities throughout the article also creates a better picture of equity and inclusion also enhances the article. There were a few awkward sentences and misused punctuation throughout that could use some work, notably there are unnecessary adverbs that felt like padding, a citation which was not linked, instead being displayed as "[1]" in plain text, and citations were placed before punctuation rather than after. The lead could use more refining to better encompass what the article it will be covering. Some headings could use better names, such as "boundaries," and some could be better organized or broken up like "history", which covers geography, park history, and indigenous history which would better fit under the already existing indigenous communities header. Some informal language, and overly supportive language was used which made it not fit into the style of a wikipedia article. A more diverse set of citations could also benefit this article as the vast majority are not peer reviewed. Finally a few formatting improvements could be made such as hyperlinking to topics and images, as well as reordering topics in a more meaningful way. Again, this article was overall well written and these are mostly nit-picks, what has been written will serve as a good base when moving out of the first draft.