Talk:Malcolm Knapp Research Forest

Peer Review by Laura Sierra

While the sections are well written, here are some important tips to consider using to improve your wiki page. The headings should be properly set up to create better sections or subsections for each of your headings (i.e. under Advanced setting when editing your wiki at the top of the page, click under the 'Heading" title - aim for Level 2 for main headings and Level 3 for subsections). Another tip will be to hyperlink important words that can be connected to other Wikipedia pages - such as when discussing trees in the first section, you can individually hyperlink the Douglas Firs, Western Red Cedars, and Western Hemlock trees or the list of Camp Goodtimes activities. Be sure to reread and edit some minor grammar errors for a better sentence construction in every section. Try and cite the "http://loonlake.ubc.ca/" under the same reference by adding a reference name when citing this reference- this would be better than having the same link twice in your reference list. As you mentioned that you were going to be taking pictures of the forest over the weekend, try to take multiple pictures and to upload at least 2-3 if possible. Lastly, be sure to cite as much factual information in your wiki page as more citing would be better in order to avoid plagiarism - there is currently limited referencing to other sources in your wikipedia - as well as to create a more diverse reference page by adding different sources from online to support your facts that go beyond ubc links. It would also be a great idea to add a "see also section" with reference to the Maple ridge wiki page and other research forests in BC if there are wiki pages for them.

Heading Examples:

Level 2

Level 3

Laurasweil (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Laura Sierra

Comments from Rosie:

• I'm impressed by this advanced advice - it's just what this page needs.

---

Peer Review by Jocelyn

I thought it was fantastic how you had the box with the coordinates, area etc. One thing I found that could be changed was perhaps the organization/presentation of the UBC Influence section. This is especially relevant for us being in a UBC class and because it is a research forest, but for most people searching the page, the hiking and program information would be most relevant. The listing of reports in this section could also be reevaluated--perhaps noted, explained or summarized and then referenced. The "fire of 1868" is casually referenced and I didn't really understand it: the introduction could be briefer and then other information could be allocated to a "history" section that further explains the history and existence of the research forest. I am excited to see your pictures! Cheers! jocie (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie:

• Excellent advice.

---

Peer Review by Henry

I like how you organize your information into the subtopics and the use of appropriate headings for each of them. There are a couple of changes that should be do to make your page up to Wikipedia standards. The coordinates should have direction (N,W) and there is no need to have that much decimal places. Is there a specific date where the place was created or only the year is given? I feel like what you have in your references should belong in a different section called "External Links" as links back to the "Topic" homepage instead linking to written documents/articles found in websites. That being said, the section with the annual reports seems to belong in your 'Reference' section. If you do that you can simply write a short sentence about UBC conducts annual reports and link it to the references. You should remove the parts where the readers need to click on the link to the map PDF as this isn't something that is commonly done in wikipedia. No need to underline your sub-headings but keep it bolded. Like what the previous reviewers mention, having some images would be nice, a map of it would work as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeh000 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie:

• Good advice about how to handle the UBC Annual Reports.

---

Peer Review by Arik T.

I think there are a lot of words in your article that already have their own wikipedia pages, so it would be nice if you turn those words into links (Coast Mountains, Douglas Fir..., also when you mention UBC's liquid mirror telescope, that too has its own wikipedia page -> Large Zenith Telescope , and others). The format of the page could use work, as the previous reviewers have mentioned. Also there's the various links that are not citations scattered throughout the articles (UBC annual reports, and the trail maps); I think that these links belong to a separate "External Links" section, since it's a bit odd to have links that say "Click here...," if that makes sense. It's fine to have these links within the article if they fit the context, like the link for Camp Goodtimes. Otherwise they seem out of place. Once you add your images to the article, it should make it much much more interesting and enjoyable to read. I also saw the broken link to what looks to be a logo for the Research Forest in the info box, was that a Logo you uploaded that was deleted? Wikipedia has some strict uploading rules that might prevent you from actually uploading a logo (even if its free for non-commercial reuse) until your articles actually gets uhhhh... published to the main space (probably not the correct terminology).

Regarding content, your article has a good amount, but if it's possible you should also cite the facts that you stated in the first paragraph. Some of the wording in the article like "You are able to pick up a map..." should be reworded to a more third person kind of view (something like "Maps of the marked trails are available at the office..." instead). I liked the article and I'm looking forward to seeing the final version along with the pictures, cheers!

Attt7 (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie:

• All excellent advice that should be incorporated in the revisions.

---

Review by Wendy A.

Hi, it is really evident that you did a lot of research for your page. However, I think that you could find a better way of organizing this information by dividing it into more subsections. I think that the first section of your page is a little syntactically clunky and jumps around between topics. This could be improved if you split this information between sections such as “History” and “Ecology”. I think that your page definitely needs “History” and “Ecology” sections, as I think that these are some of the most important subsections that readers would look for on a Wikipedia page for an ecological site. I think that you should include the date and identify who founded the park near the beginning of the page’s introduction. You should also introduce the research that you are referring to before the phrase, “since ongoing research is being done”, and explain who is doing this research and what the purpose of the research is. Also, quite a lot of information in the first section – information about rainfall, heights, etc – could go under a “Geography” section. 1) The information about Malcom Knapp under “UBC Influence and research” (needs proper capitalization for a title), 2) the reference to the fire of 1868 (and more background explaining that reference) and 3) information about the founding of the park should all go under a subsection titled “History.” I think that “History” should be your first subsection, as that seems to be the convention, looking at other pages. Also, the UBC annual reports should be summarized and the links can be accessed by the reader through the References list if they chose to access them. “Here are some of the annual reports that UBC has released” does not sound encyclopaedic. Really interesting page. Can’t wait to see the finished product. :) Sciencegeek3332 (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie:

• I like the reorganization advice.

---

Review by Chris

As mentioned before I believe formatting, headings, and referencing could be improved upon. Anytime that you state some kind of fact I think it should be referenced to a credible source. For example in the first section in the sentence "The western part..." you state some really interesting facts about the forrest but since there is no reference I wouldn't know how credible it is or where I could go to find out more information about the fact.

Also I would watch for bias in the UBC/history section specifically with your word choices. Words such as "visionary" are a little subjective and it might not be a totally neutral view. The content in there is great but there a just a few words that could be tweaked.

Lastly, I think some of your pdf files of maps could be better uploaded as pictures for your articles. I know you said you would be going out to take pictures but to see the map trails in photo form instead of having to click on it would add to the page. Not all the pdf's should be put into photo form though, just a couple that show some of the trails. Other than that it looks like it's coming along and it will be a great article once it's finished! Chrisv21 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rosie:

• Yes, the referencing needs to be more comprehensive.

---

Feedback from Ruth and Rosie

• The photos are a great addition. Now if you can just get a map. I think there's Wikipedia utility that creates location maps.
• You were especially fortunate in your assigned peer reviewers. All their advice is excellent and should be followed if at all possible.

From Ruth:

• Remove the link to http://www.mkrf.forestry.ubc.ca/ in the introduction.
• Put in external links section at the bottom of the page (Wikipedia doesn’t like external links within the main text).
• Same goes for the annual reports, maps etc.
• Recreation section has to sound less like a tourist brochure and overall avoid subjective words.
• Need more references in the main text.
• Make sure the sections and subsections are set up correctly.*More links to Wikipedia pages i.e. tree species needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosieredfield (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)