User:ENVSstudent104/Santa Clara Valley Water District/Sarah.Logan55 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ENVSstudent104 John Serra


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ENVSstudent104/Santa_Clara_Valley_Water_District?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Santa Clara Valley Water District

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall I think you are on the right track. Looking at the original article I see that there really isn't an article which in a sense leaves it wide open for you to add to it. Have you thought about adding images or graphs to help the article? One thing I wasn't sure on is I see there is already kind of an intro on the article and are you redoing it to yours or adding to it? I think your intro and the original cover the same ideas so defiantly use only one or the other. Also I personally felt like your introduction included a lot more specific info than what is usually included in just an intro, like for example about the wells. SO maybe take a look and see what you could maybe put in a different section or its own paragraph. Also regarding the intro, I noticed that you talk a lot about the water and where it comes from and specifics then back to how big the area is acre wise and so I don't feel like it flows. Something that may be helpful is try to read your sandbox from an outside perspective and see what you hav etc reread or what sounds weird to help guide you. For the rest of your article I think each section is off to a good start and will be beneficial. Just be careful of trying to add to many sections where it feels like you are all over the place. Think to yourself and ask why should this article have this section, why is this important to this topic, and is it necessary to understand or to learn about this topic? I think you are trying to add a lot which my bog you down. So I would suggest write the most important necessary sections first and then time allowing focus on the others. That way you don't make some sections very long and detailed and others short of brief, kind of balance it out you know? But overall I do like your topic and the direction you are going. Your tone is neutral and its not focusing on good or bad. It is interesting and I did enjoy reading it and learning. Your sources look good and reliable and are a variety. I think as you spend more time on this article it will work its kinks out and will be a great article.

As I read your sandbox I was writing things down of what I think may need edited or relooked at. If you have any questions or need clarification just email me. I tried to quote the sentence to help you find it or saw the header.

Intro section add hyperlink to Federal Central Valley project if there's a wiki page on it. "Santa Clara Water District has historically extracted water from under the ground in aquifers as well. Alluvial aquifers are the source of this ground water. " Can probably combine this to one sentence as it sounds kind of weird. "water level in wells in the Santa Clara Water District to 108 feet." what is it normally because to me as an outsider 108 seems like a lot still. So adding what it should be or what is normally will help put it into perspective. "This also led to land subsidence up to 12.7 feet between the 60-year gap from 1900 to the 1960’s.  Meaning that the ground level sunk." Combine the sentences sounds weird. There are a lot of two sentences like this where the second small sentence seems like a fragment so try to combine them or reword it. " operates 10 dams and reservoirs" spell out ten. "They treat water in many stages, first they remove substances such as solids, they then disinfect with ozone. After that, microscopic particles are then removed. The final stage is to disinfect with chlorine. " who is they? Im also assuming that you are planning to add this somewhere or add to it. The section "Goals/Focus" - Climate Change Adaptation I think is off to a great start and I think if you add descriptions of what each goal entails and expand on each of those then that section will be all good. The rest of the sections I feel are off to a good start and I think keeping the projects section as bullet points and brief description for each is a good idea. Or give each one a small paragraph to give a good description of each. I also like how you added an incidents section as I feel like that will be great to talk about,

-Sarah Logan

 My response to Sarah Logan's: 

(Hi Sarah. Thanks for the peer review!

While going through your comments and suggestions I also agree many of the points you brought up. When creating the draft, I was unsure exactly how I wanted to organize the additions to the article as some of the material crosses different sections. I also wasn't sure how to incorporate the original authors introduction. which was why I was playing around with a new introduction. My plans are to include most of the authors mixed with my own. And I also like the combining sentences idea. I'll definitely keep that in mind as edit my contribution. As for the bulleted items, I wish there was more on some of them. The actual website lists very limited info on many of the items. I'll will definitely keep looking and add as much as I can though. Once again, thanks for the peer review, good luck on yours! )