Talk:Richmond Nature Park

Canada: British Columbia / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program: University of British Columbia/BIOL 345 Human Ecology (Winter 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Peer Reviews[edit]

Peer Review by David Wu

The structure of this page is not completed as seen. A big and clear topic should show at the top of the page, and this will make your readers to know what this page is about. Another suggestion for this Richmond Park is that it will be nice if you label their detail address and how people can get there. There must be some bus, skyptrain routes for this place. Adding in what buses will go there and provide a route on the map which is already in the wiki page will benefit the people who really has the interest to visit. On the other hand, the page should contain more information about the ecology and nature of this park. What kind of animals and plants can we see in this park? Is there any invasive species in this place? Adding pictures for these animals or plants is very good. It might be hard to take pictures of the creatures habitat in this park since most animals are scared of human beings, taking a few pictures of the park itself is seemingly essential.

Overall this page is very good, well organized and has much information most of the readers will be interested in. After these changes are made, it will be a really nice wiki page.

Dongyuan Wu David20101993 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 206.87.158.57 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, access information is very important, and the page really does need a local map.
Photos would indeed be big improvement

Peer Review by Eva Regehr

A title for the page is missing. I think the "sidebox" could use some more detailed information (the country, who manages the park etc.). In the background has a solid amount of information and is a good intro into the page. I think the "History" section should come before the "Facilities" section. The history is really solid and gives a lot of information. Under the facilities section I don't think it is necessary to have a separate heading for "Nature House" because there aren't any other headings- are there any other facilities in the park? If there are it would be useful to add a little more information on them in this section. I think that "Ecology" should go before "Activities" and that the "Wildlife" section could be a sub heading in the "Ecology" section (since ecology refers to both biotic and abiotic factors. It may be useful to add a section on "Access" and include the transit/main routes to get to the park. A few more pictures of the actual park itself would make the page more interesting. Overall I think this is a really good and thorough wikipedia page.

Evaregehr (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Evaregehr[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does need more information about other facilities, and maybe about facilities that aren't available (parking?).

Peer Review by Taylor Keraiff[edit]

Though it is mentioned on top of the image in the sidebar, the page should have a title. The sidebar also should contain more information. You should go to other pages that are of parks, go into their edit section and see how they added the "park" sidebar. It contains much more information rather than just area, coordinates, etc. It would be a good idea to have a map/address of exactly where it is as well, so that if future people want to visit it they know exactly where it is other than just in Richmond. What is a bog-forest? What does it contain that other forests do not (maybe you should try externally link this if there is no page on different type of forests). The history section is good and I like how you sectioned off the years; maybe add these into the table of contents for easier access. The ecology section is great as well, though I would make "Wildlife" a subsection of Ecology, and Lulu Island Bog a different section all together. If you do this, make sure to section off the other ecological aspects as well so that it is nicely organized. I really like how detailed this page is already. It has many links to click on to redirect to other wikipedia pages which is awesome! Can you link City of Richmond? Also, the "See Also" section is a very good thing that you have added. I may also add to this section other bog-forests around the area (or in BC if there aren't very many). Very good draft! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorkeraiff (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title, yes!
Good advice about using other 'park' pages as examples.

Peer Review by Jacob Bosancich[edit]

So this page is all together very good. Strengths and things you should not change is the overall layout, the location box on side, and the contents section. The weaknesses and suggestions are as follows. There is no title page so I would add one. The picture that you took is a little dark. I would brighten it up or go out there and take one. You can upload pictures to wikimedia commons and then add them to your page from there. Taking more pictures of the lovely insects birds and general ecology would greatly contribute you your page. It is always great to use visuals. I though your page could benefit from a trail map. You can draw one and put it up on wikimedia commons like I mentioned before. the words "pond" "spring" and "summer" do not need to be linked. Most people know what these things are so it is unnecessary.You also differentiate between mammals as "tiny" or "large". I don't think it adds anything and you should consider grouping mammals into one category. Having an external link to "the Richmond nature park society" and "scrubby trees"is something that should be linked but is not (I don't know what scrubby trees are). I like the activities you provided but again these do not have to be linked. Also, playing around with putting it in a sentence instead of a list might add more continuity through your page. I noticed you have a lot of sources which is good but I noticed most of them are from the city website. I would try finding a couple more peer review articles and this will add to the objectivity of the article. Great article overall and I think pending a few changes, you have a nice finished product here. Bosancich123 (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good advice here!

Peer Review by Chris[edit]

As mentioned by others, the title page and side bar could be improved with more information. The park sounds amazing and one way to convey they to the readers is to include the use of photos, park trails, ect... In the activities section I think a map of the trails would be nice to have instead of just a description. The organization of your headings could be changed around. The History and background should be first. Also, is there more than one facility there? or is it just the nature house? If there are other facilities there then you should add to the facilities section other wise you could just change the heading from facilities to just the nature house. You have really good referencing in your wiki page so that was done well. Couple of minor organizational changes and re arrangement of information and you will have a good final product. Chrisv21 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A trail map, showing the layout of the park, would be a great addition. (Even a simple sketch would be a lot better than nothing.)

Feedback from Rosie and Ruth[edit]

This is an excellent draft, with not much more work needed.

Need an Intro section above the Contents list. (Ruth can help if you don't know how to do this; start by removing the section heading for the intro section.)
The March 10 version had reference problems but these have since been corrected.
The Activities section should have specific information about resources at the park for that these types of activities, rather than just links to Wikipedia pages with general information about each activity type.
Flow of sentences and grammar needs a little work in the introduction and details/explanation.
What sights would a visitor see that they won't see in other parks?
Maybe 'See also' links to other local bogs (e.g. info on Camosun Bog in the Pacific Spirit Park page)
Does the park have washrooms? picnic tables?

Rosieredfield (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]