Talk:Maplewood Flats Conservation Area

Untitled

Hey Eva, I have added some content onto the Maplewood flats page. I have exhausted resources on the UBC library and Google scholar so any other information we get will have to come from the web(although I have a couple more points to add from articles I found). I will be adding some pictures this weekend. We should also make a contents section. I have been focusing on adding content, so there may be some corrections in the wording that are needed. If you see anything that needs correcting feel free to correct it, re-format it or let me know. Thanks! (Bosancich123 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

Peer Reviews

This is a very well structured page. I especially like your use of cross references to other Wikipedia pages, I think that adds value to what is already a very informing article. Your emphasis on "Biology & Ecology" will make this project a strong one. One thing I noticed is that your table of contents seems a bit overcrowded at this point (although that might be because it still is a draft,) perhaps consider grouping some of the sections by using subheadings. You might want to reshuffle some of your headings based on emphasis priority as well, which I think will make your article even better at the end. I see your reflist is all URLs, but I'm assuming that's how you drafted it so it shouldn't be a problem. Looking forward to see its final form after it's published! - Batuhan DieDemokratieimmer (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Good suggestion for the ToC

---

This article was done with a lot of care. I like how you added the ecology of the Maple Wood Flats along with the recreational component the flats. This makes the page appealing to a wider audience base. One thing I wanted to change was to make your table of contents shorter. One way to do this, I think is to add the "Bird Watching Locations" as a subcategory to the "Recreation and Facilities Category." I also recommend that "Access" can be linked with "Jurisdiction". On the whole however, I think this is a very promising page. Looking forward to the finished product! VariedEye (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• More good suggestions for the ToC

---

As the others have said, your page is very well constructed and edited. One small thing is that I might reorder the content so that "Bird Watching Locations" is beneath "Biology and Ecology" as it is a nice connector between bio and ecology and recreation. It makes the information more relevant after having read about the ecology in the area. The regulations section could also be reformatted so as to not be comprised of so many short sentences: if you want to keep it concise you could format it into a table or a list. Your photos are fantastic, but some kind of map of the area (even a map of the bird watching locations) would be awesome. Cheers! jocie (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent review; yes, it needs a map.

---

Peer Review by David Ko Hello Eva! Your draft page looks quite good so far and I like the picture of Maplewood Flats Conservation Area with the different sections below it that shows location, nearest city, coordinates etc... There is one link that I feel needs to be addressed. It's the one on Soras. One way to specify is to format it as [ ["actual name of the page"|name that is used on the page] ]. That way the link directs you to the exact page and not a page where wiki gives you more pages that relate to soras in general. There are also quite a few grammatical errors in the History section especially that needs to be looked over. Also what might be a good idea is for the bird watching locations section, if possible, have a reference using a diagram showing where, spatially these locations are. I understand that this is just a draft page, but the regulations and access sections do look a bit short. Maybe expand on those sections if possible? I did like how there is an external links section and how the references all work and are organized well. Overall good job! :) Davidk94 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Lots of good advice. It's best to specify the grammatical errors, because often the person creating them won't know they're wrong.

---

Peer Review by Henry Your draft page is done very well to be the final actual wiki page. Organization is done very well with the multiple sections and the use of the information box on the top is a great addition. In the technical aspect, each section is separated nicely and the references are correctly formatted. One thing I suggest to change to have the 'External Link' Section come after 'References' instead of before it. It seems to me that some of your content is missing citations and should be referring to a source (i.e. the 'bird watching' section). I also noticed you are have categories in your reference section. Not sure if you need to have that but I think your page will be fine without it. Further improvements towards your page is adding more content if possible. I like the fact you use multiple images but I it seems you could replace one of the images to a different one that is more significant such a general map displaying the area and its section if there is one available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeh000 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it needs a map.

---

Peer Review by Wendy A

Your page is really attractive and polished-looking. I see that you have the date of the conservation site’s founding under “History”; however, other pages on similar topics list the dates of the establishment of their respective parks near the beginning of the introduction and then again in their history sections. This can be seen on the Banff National Park and Yellowstone National Park Pages. Also, I think your article would be easier to follow if under every subsection you referred to The Maplewood Flats Conservation area by its full name initially so that it would be clearer what “the area” and “the land” are referring to. As well, the sentence under “History”, “The land was once an industrial site though through the lobbying of public interest groups actions were initiated to restore the land back to its natural state” looks like a run-on and is a bit confusing. You could write something like, “The Maplewood Flats Conservation Area is product of the lobbying of public interests groups who wanted to restore the land of an industrial site on which the Conservation Area is now located.” Or another option is to break this sentence up into two sentences. I think that “natural state” might also be a problematic term, since the area is obviously altered by humans. Maybe just write “restore the land/ecosystem” in your new sentence. The section on the David Suzuki film doesn’t seem to fit so well under the section on the History of the park. Maybe this could go under another section on local projects campaigning for the park or on publicity that the park has enjoyed (eg. "In the Media" or "In Academia" - I know that a lot of wikipedia pages have an "In Popular Culture" section.). Also, I think that the listing of regulations in a way that seems to address the reader ("not this, no that") under the section "Regulations" is not very encyclopaedic. You should instead identify who is in charge of regulating the area and the write "Regulations include" before identifying the restrictions and maybe say "... is not allowed" or "blank, blank, and blank are prohibited" in stead of what you currently have there. Great how you have linked your page to so many other pages. I like how you have included "Bird Watching Locations." That is really useful for readers. Maybe you could find a way of listing the locations vertically, to make this section look more organized. Really beautiful visuals. Great page! Good luck! Sciencegeek3332 (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie: Rosieredfield (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent review. Your detailed specific suggestions are particularly helpful.

---

Feedback from Ruth and Rosie

• Can you explain in a few words the aims of the ‘ecological land initiatives’?
• Replace '~- symbol with the word approximately (not everyone will know what this means).
• 20 minutes by car/bus/rickshaw??
• The language and grammar needs some editing (read though carefully) to make it clearer and the page and text needs some reorganization to make it flow better (see the peer reviews, people had some good suggestions).
• Move bird watching location below biology and ecology, could almost be a subsection in biology & ecology.
• Nice photos!
• A map showing the location would be very helpful. You could just sketch this yourself, copying from Google Maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieredfield (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong Geo Coordinates

The geo coordinates listed in the side bar for the location are: 49.18°N 123.02°W That is about 8 miles south the preserve in the middle of a farm. Correct Geo Coordinates look to be closer to something like: 49°18'17.5"N 123°00'18.9"W -- you might have just been missing the extended numbers (the "seconds" and such) via truncation or some such.162.220.42.222 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)