User talk:Claireosanger/sandbox

Peer Review

 * I would take away the comma after "The Canada National Parks Act, is… "
 * Space between 300,000km2
 * I think the source goes after the period??
 * Is there a reason the third Canada National Parks Act is in italic?
 * Can you define "Minister of the Interior" and "Governor in Council" or provide a link to their pages (if they exist)? I.e. who/what are they and what are they responsible for? + Same for "Department of the Interior" and "Commissioner"
 * You sometimes capitalize ‘Act’ and other times not? Reason or mistake?
 * Could you give an example of the strongest conservation language used to date? Would be interesting to know + also specific ways they intend to make maintenance and restoration the first priority
 * National Park Reserves is capitalized in the paragraph but not the section heading
 * Otherwise very well written and interesting : )

-- I.Love.Trees.Yes.I.Do (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thank you for your suggestions! Very helpful. I've made the changes you suggested and will be adding more on today. If you get a chance to proof read one more time before Wednesday that would be really helpful. Claireosanger (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For "The current Canada National Parks Act was assented on..." I would replace "assented" with either "received royal assent on..." or "became effective on...".
 * "Greatly inspired by the creation of the Yellowstone Park Act". I would also add a link to the Yellowstone Park Act if it exists and add the year it was implemented in order to give context to how soon after Canada responded. I quickly looked up this law, and it looks like it was actually called the Yellowstone National Park Act, but I'd look into it further just to make sure.
 * "Minister of the Interior and the Governor in Council" I'd try to use less 'government-y' lingo!
 * In reference to the comment above about when you do and do not capitalize "act", I would imagine that it would be best to capitalize it when referring to the subject of the article and not capitalizing when it's another law.
 * I would say "received royal assent" rather than "was given royal assent".
 * I would refer to the full title of every act in their introductory sentences even though their names are in each of the subtitles.
 * I don't think it's important to mention when the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act underwent its final reading.
 * "it created the Dominion Parks branch as a new branch of the Department"
 * "Incidentally, the Dominion Parks"
 * "Harkin oversaw the number of parks triple". Where? In Canada?
 * "the act accented to in 1930 removed the administration of national parks from the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act". Confusing sentence. Maybe: "the act, which was implemented in 1930, removed the...."
 * "the National Parks Act (1930) included in its general purpose section (section 4) that". I'd maybe say "section 4 of the National Parks Act states that national parks are...."
 * Last sentence of the NPA paragraph is a bit confusing. Perhaps say "The Act is recognized as a foundation upon which...".
 * Under National park reserves: sections 40 to 41.4 which stipulates --> sections 40 to 41.4 which stipulate.
 * Really well done!

Woodjuliekat (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Julie, thanks for your comments and suggestions. I've mostly implemented your suggestions though I have retained some of the more "government-y" titles in the aim to remain precise as the who had what power under certain legislation. I have however tried to link the titles to their own wiki pages hoping that confused readers can inform themselves there! Will be adding a few new sections today and tomorrow if you have anymore thoughts. Thanks! Claireosanger (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead Section
In 1911, under a renewed national parks act, Canada became the first country in the world to establish their own national parks service. -this may need a citation

Over the course of its history, Canadas National Parks Act has struggled to defined the primary intention of national parks by trying to balance parks as places both of conservation and public enjoyment. -Canada's -define - i would replace public enjoyment with leisure

Early parks acts in Canada applied exclusionary policies and forcibly removed Indigenous peoples off lands in order to create national parks[6]. -citation should go after the period -"Early parks acts" is awkward and can probably be said as "early legislation" or something (being picky)

With developments in the legal recognition of Aboriginal title and rights in Canada, provisions have been included with in the National Parks Act to extend the right of traditional harvesting within national park reserves, as well as, in some cases to share park management between the National Parks Agency and local Indigenous groups.[3] -typo and the additional "within" in the next clause makes it awkward -I think using the word harvesting is slightly controversial to some, maybe just traditional activities? (picky) -awkward, would suggest remove "as well as" and write "with some cases altering park management to be shared between..." Alpeach (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)