User talk:SophiaSnobelen/Esquimalt Lagoon Migratory Bird Sanctuary/ArloOkem Peer Review

Review of Your Draft
First off I would say I enjoy the flow of the article and the general structure you (all) have laid out. It reads smoothly and informatively. It shoots straight and does not lean in any one direction, as far as opinion is concerned. Considering the original Wikipedia page for the lagoon is a single paragraph, the information drafted is quite helpful and needed.

Second, I think the article seems to lack a general leading or opening section and I feel it could be helpful. Perhaps written in a summarizing manner of the article as a whole and with strong opening and closing sentences. I do appreciate and enjoy leading with the history section, but what that being said, I do feel it focuses more on the Esquimalt areas history quite heavily and it does feel somewhat distracting. Especially considering Esquimalt already has its own Wikipedia page with a well detailed history section. If possible I feel it would be much more beneficial to focus the history section around the lagoon versus on the general area of Esquimalt.

Third, The sources used seem very reliable informative, and unbiased. With that being said Your' forth reference from Esquimalt Nation does tend to leave with some bias to it, however the information you have used and the way you have written it does a very good job of not leaning one way or another.

Fourth, This leads me to talking about your references as a whole. Immediately, as I started reading I could see you relied to heavily on your second reference ("Bird of a Feather, B&B). It is referenced a total of 15 times across the whole article and the page itself is not very large at all. I highly recommend using a wider array of sources, as it can be getting into a bit of a plagiaristic territory. Additionally you use your 5th reference 8 times in the article, but I don't feel that is as big a concern as this is a very good reference with a ton of information in it (80 pages worth).

Fifth, I went to cross reference with your bibliography and outline section to get an idea of what you were going for, but neither of them seem to exist.

Sixth, I would (personally) like to see more information of the actual makeup of the area. What I mean by that is maybe, soils, sands, or general geographic, topographic, and hydro-logical information and what makes the lagoon the lagoon. Climate information, elevation, and even mentioning more on plants (especially regarding forests and/or surrounding bioms). Both your draft and the present Wikipedia article make no mention. This would be especially helpful in strengthening your draft as you have a climate change section, and having information to cross reference with and compare, would give readers a much better understanding of how climate change is affecting the the lagoon specifically.

Seventh, I feel the "objectives" section is neat, but could use more work. Who's objectives are these, exactly? It really only mentions one, so perhaps some more detail into the planning and who is involved would be nice to see. It currently feels as though it belongs in the history section of your article, more so.

Eighth, I really appreciate the "plants and wildlife" section very much, as they are major parts of the lagoons existence and operation, so to speak. Overall I feel this section is well done, and if I could give any critique, it would be that the more detailed this area is the more helpful and informative your article will be.

Ninth, the grammar seems strong and concise, with no perceivable errors. As I mentioned earlier the flow of your writing is easy to follow and digest. One thing that could add a boost to it, could be the addition of some images.

Tenth, all citation and their links work and lead to strong sources.

Overall this is a very good draft and well done.

[ArloOkem] ArloOkem (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)