User:Csaindon/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Kesterson Reservoir
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The article's section on Contamination is very brief, and can easily be built upon. This reservoir is also a case study in ecotoxicology, which shows the effects of selenium toxicity.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

This article's lead is pretty weak, being only two sentences long. The introductory sentence only gives context as to the reservoir's location, and does not summarize the major talking points on this subject. The second sentence of the lead dives into the ecotoxicology issues of the reservoir. Further analysis of the reservoir's contamination should be added in the lead to give a slightly more in-depth summary.


 * 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

The article's content is all relevant to the topic. The background section is the most extensive, and discusses the reservoir's agricultural history as well as its geography and geology. The page was created in 2007, so the content should be updated.

A major content gap in this article is information regarding contamination of the reservoir, particularly relating to effects on the plants and wildlife in the area. A broad summary of the ecological effects on the reservoir due to the selenium contamination is needed.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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
 * The article is written neutrally. Historical and geographical perspectives are represented well, whereas ecological perspectives are definitely underrepresented. No viewpoints are necessarily overrepresented in this article, there are only content gaps that need to be added to. While there are some grammatical errors and some sentences that could use re-structuring, the tone is generally unbiased.


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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * This article includes 6 references, 5 of which were retrieved in 2007 when the page was created. The first and third sources contains broken links and can't be accessed. The second source brings you to an internet archive on the San Luis National Refuge from 2007. The fourth source brings you to an archive from 2005 specifically on selenium toxicity at the Kesterson Reservoir. The fifth source is a journal article about the Kesterson Reservoir, and the sixth source is an archive regarding public health and soil irrigation.
 * Together, there are two broken links, three internet archives, and one journal article cited. These sources are mostly outdated, and should be updated with newer scientific findings, and updated information on the current state of the reservoir. More scientific papers on the subject should be included.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article could use some reorganization. Currently, there is a Background section and a Contamination section. The Background section could be broken up into a History and Geography sections. In the middle of the Background section there is a box of uncited text that disrupts the flow of information, and should be moved or deleted.


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * There are no images included in this article, only a map of the location of the reservoir. Images of the reservoir should be added, as well as relevant images regarding the contamination, if found.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The talk page primarily discusses the broken links, and one person suggested that the tag "Kesterson Slough" be added to the page, because that was how it was referenced in the media. The article is rated as a C-class article, and is part of the WikiProject California and WikiProject Lakes.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The articles strengths are the background section, which discusses the history and geographical context of the area. The major weaknesses of the article is the Contamination section, which needs further information on the ecological impacts of the selenium contamination. The article also requires updated references and re-organization.
 * I would classify this article as being semi-developed, it is well developed in some areas, and needs work in others. Overall the bones are good, but it needs elaboration and additional sources.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: