User talk:Jennyjieun/Nlháxten/Cerise Creek Conservancy

The Goals of the protected area was a very strong paragraph. It was strong because it covers a lot of substance while also not getting too bogged down with unnecessary words, it is easy to understand, it has relevant information, it is cited perfectly, it is edited well and has a neutral tone. Although some more information could have been put to explain, “The LLUP aims to protect these areas for traditional activities like gathering, fishing, hunting, trapping, and ceremonies.” What ceremonies or hunting and fishing techniques. Also for this sentence, “The LUPA outlines specific management objectives for conservancies, which include safeguarding the biological diversity and natural environments within the zone, such as wildlife habitats, sustaining current levels of low-intensity backcountry recreational and tourism use while also increasing opportunities for Lil'wat Nation participation in commercial recreation and tourism enterprises, and promoting sustainable recreational and economic activities” The word habitat should be quantified as the word could mean many different things. I learned a lot after reading this document. As someone who knew nothing about Nlháxten/Cerise Creek Conservancy I learned a lot. I learned all about the history, geography, goals, management and more about the park. What I found most interesting is the ecology part of the paper. The paper does cover at least five of the major topics. However some topics were not as detailed as others which could be improved such as the First Nations and Ecology sections. I felt they were both a bit short and lacked some detail. For the First Nations part some more information could be put for, “lil'wat Nation and BC Parks initiated the planning process for the Nlháxten/Cerise Creek Conservancy” and for Ecology more information could be put for the endangered species. It is not difficult to understand anything. Everything is clear and concise. There is strong information that is told in a simple and effective manner. The structure of the document is strong however there could be a few improvements. The protected area section should be before the goals of the protected area as the protected area has important information needed to be first. Alos geography section should be underneath the goals of the protected area part as the more important information should be first and geography isn't that important. The management section should go before geography as it fits behind the goals of the protected area very well. Finally First Nations could be its own section. I do see how it has its own part but I think the First Nations do deserve its own main section as you had quite a bit of information on them throughout. The tone of the article is good. It is neutral throughout. The sources of the article are all strong sources however it does not feel like there are enough sources because some areas should have been sourced when they weren't. For example

In 2017, Lil’wat Nation and BC Parks initiated the planning process for the Nlháxten/Cerise Creek Conservancy, with the Lil'wat Nation providing funding. While the Lil'wat Nation played a crucial role, neighboring First Nations and key stakeholders also actively participated and contributed input to the plan's development. The area contains five provincial parks and three conservancies within a 20-kilometres radius of the conservancy. The document is balanced however some more information could be put for geography, protected areas, First Nations, and ecology. The article did have strong comments on the equity and diversity comments in the First Nations, Goals of protected area, and management section however the inclusion perspective was lacking a bit. Could maybe be added to the visitors and history section of the document. Jimbo917 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)