User:Marcferda/Belcarra Regional Park/Lemonlime442 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Marcferda

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Marcferda/Belcarra Regional Park
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Belcarra Regional Park

Evaluate the drafted changes

I enjoyed reading the article. I found it easy to read, easy understand and very informative! I have divided my feedback into sections below!

Lead

- The lead in the original article was very well written, I can see why it was not changed or edited.

Background

- The use of numbers (years and hectares), along with other specifics provides a clear background of the history of Belcarra Regional Park.

- There are a couple of sentences that sound a little awkward grammatically. For example, “Belcarra Regional Park spans across Belcarra, Anmore and Port Moody, cities in the Metro Vancouverarea.”, might sound better if it was reworded to “Belcarra Regional Park spans across cities in the Metro Vancouver Area, including Belcarra, Anmore and Port Moody.

- Belcarra and Anmore are not cities, they are village municipalities.

- Overall, the information included in this is section is very detailed, relevant and up to date.

Cultural and Ecological Significance

- The information included in this section is very relevant to the article and appears to be up to date.

- The inclusion of information about the Tsleil-Wauthuth Nation is especially relevant and important.

- Some of the sentences have 2 or 3 great ideas. I think the article splitting these ideas up into different sentences would allow you to elaborate more on each of them.

Land Use and Wildlife

- Detailed information presented.

- Gives clear pictures of what recreational land use looks like.

- This section may benefit from including information about land uses other than recreation. For example, are there any economic or industrial land uses in Belcarra Regional Park? If not, adding that there is not multiple types of land use would add credibility to this section.

- The last sentence in this section may need a citation.

Conservation

- The information is this section is relevant and detailed, it considers many aspects of conservation.

- The integration of the local Indigenous Peoples in this section is relevant, adds another perspective and acknowledges the importance of their involvement in conservation.

- Some sentences sound a bit awkward grammatically, similar to my comment above, consider looking for sentences that could be reworded to better illustrate the point.

Tone and Balance

- The content added is neutral according to Wikipedia guidelines.

- There are no claims that appear to be biased.

- The viewpoints equally represent western and Indigenous involvement/history with the land.

- The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References

- The new content is backed up by some reliable sources.

- The newspaper article, city PDFs and Preservation Society websites used are current and relevant. However, they are lacking reputable sources to back them up.

- The sources appear to include a couple different viewpoints.

- All the links work.

- Minimal sources, finding 2 or 3 more sources may enhance the quality of the article

- Include more sources and some peer reviewed sources to help provide more detail in article and increase credibility.

- I found a peer review article that may be useful. It is a bit older (from 2007) but it is written from an Indigenous Perspective and includes information about the land included in Belcarra Park. Here is the link:

o https://www-jstor-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/41103300?sid=primo&typeAccessWorkflow=login&seq=1

Organization

- Content added is easy to read and understand.

- Effort could be made to make some sentences more clear and concise.

- Minimal grammar/spelling errors.

- The content is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

- It is well-organized.

Overall Impressions

- The content added has improved the overall quality of the article.

- The article is more complete with the added information.

- The content added is easily understood by any reader, regardless of their background knowledge.

- The writers did a very good job of introducing important information about Belcarra Regional Park in a logical manner and including different viewpoints.

- A section on engendered species could be added to this article to provide readers with a broader understanding of the biodiversity in the area.

- This draft currently meets the goal of addressing at least five of the required topics in the marking rubric. I think some of the topics addressed could be more developed.

- From reading this article, I learned more about the management of the area, the involvement of the Iocal Indigenous community and how this community is involved in conservation efforts.

- The content could be improved by making the sentences more concise, splitting up some sentences, and fully exploring all the great ideas presented in the article.

- This would also help to develop some of the sections, making the article longer and providing the reader with more detail.