User:KatieChen88/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Santa Monica Mountains

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is the article I intend on working on with my partner for our wikiedu assignment to update an article. The Santa Monica Mountains are right near where I grew up and I have fond memories of hiking and enjoying natural history in the area. Currently the article is marked in need of citations and skimming through the article there are sections which are indeed missing sources and that do not read the most clearly.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

Lead section of the article succinctly defines what the Santa Monica Mountains are but don't really give an overview of the rest of the article. It also includes the claim that "it is one of the most visited natural areas in California" without sufficient citation and while later in the article does include mention of nearby neighborhoods there is no section specifically pertaining to tourism/visitation.

Content

The archeology section of this article is limited in length and could use additional detail. It could be useful to update the archeology section to a history section since other than the mention that there are archaeological sites there it seems to more cover the human presence in the area. While the Archeology section does acknowledge the Santa Monica Mountains are part of traditional Chumash and Tongva people homelands (the word "were" is used which implies that it is no longer their homelands/native territory). Adding to this section could help represent these under voiced populations more in the article. This would could also address larger history of land use in the Santa Monica Mountains which seems to be largely missing despite the extensive urban communities so close to the area.

The geology section of this article is similarly limited for an article on the mountain range and could include more detailed information on geologic composition and formation.

Fauna section seems to be skewed towards representation of megafauna. Information on taxa such as birds or insect species are missing. Information seems to neglect to mention more common/typical fauna in the area while focusing on endangered/threatened species. Flora section similarly is missing names of common grasses and shrubs, and lacks specificity in species of trees found.

Source/Reference

Citations are missing from various section of the article most notably in the geography, climate, and area communities section.

Organization and Writing Quality

Organization of the Fauna and Flora Sections are confusing, jumping between topics in the middle of paragraphs.