User:Katiejill127/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mono Lake, reviewed by Katiejill127 talk 15:17, 8 Feb 2022

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am a water resources-focused civil engineering graduate student, I have studied Mono Lake, and I remember that the lake's wikipedia page was flagged as needing help to clarify a section. I tried to help clear things up at the time but didn't understand what the overlying problem was. The flag is still there. I hope that my reviewers will give me credit and not penalize me for selecting a flawed page, because I could have chosen a perfect page like Folsom Dam or Truckee River to evaluate. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Katiejill127 talk 15:17, 8 Feb 2022

Evaluate the article
This is an overall excellent Wikipedia summary about one of my favorite lakes. There are thorough sections about the lake's geology, hydrology, limnology, ecology, climate, history, and even a section about Mono Lake in popular culture.

There is extensive information presented about Mono Lake and the climate and lake level reconstruction possible with modern research, but the page possibly suffers from too much specificity, as two highly technical contributors have slightly conflicting dates and information.

Lead section

 * I appreciate that the lead section is concise with a brief overview of the lake and a brief mention of related historical, biological, and geopolitical facts that lead into future sections.
 * I wonder if it would benefit the page to elaborate more on the description of the future sections, but at least there is a nice concise description as-is.

Content

 * I assess that all of the important topics related to Mono Lake are referenced in this Wikipedia article, but a bit too much attention is placed on the paleoclimate and lake-level history.
 * Current lake ecohydrology is more relevant than either of these sections, and discussion of this is much more brief. The ecology section covers birds and aquatic life, but the article does not elaborate much about current hydrological conditions in any sections.
 * It's not necessarily a bad thing that historical climate and hydrologic conditions span across two sections, but they could perhaps be recomposed into one section by someone more familiar with the isotope research.
 * I think Mono Lake deserves a more robust section on its hydrology. I'd like to see the Vorster Center for Mono Basin Hydrology linked as both a source and resource for hydrology, water chemistry, and climate research of the Mono Basin. Maybe that is just my assessment, but I think there are some hydrological content that is missing.
 * User hike395 (talk) in the talk page indicates that the sections on Lake Level History and Paleoclimate added by Evalinghan are overlapping and don't seem entirely consistent. I see some date overlapping and inconsistent climate information between the two sections, but both sections use excellent sources. Last year, logged in as an anonymous user, I tried to help explain some of the more wordy paragraphs in both sections, hoping that would help smooth things over and encourage either of the editors to come back and address their overlap. I still see small overlaps and inconsistent information there, so I guess neither have taken the time yet to assess overlaps and which source is more correct. I'm open to attempting to do this, but I'm not sure I'll be able to determine which published research source on oxygen isotopes is more correct when inconsistencies arise.

Tone and Balance

 * The tone and balance of this Wikipedia article is very neutral. Geopolitical issues referenced in the article are discussed briefly and factually.
 * The only major disagreement is that of slightly differing O18 isotope research results, both results provided with excellent sources.
 * I never see any justification for why the city of Los Angeles should have or deserves to have so much water elsewhere diverted to it, but that's more a critique of overall statewide priorities (LA Aqueduct, State Water Plan) than of the Wikipedia article.

Sources and References

 * This Wikipedia article boasts a wide variety of excellent sources, including academic and peer-reviewed publications and prominent regional and statewide organizations and agencies.


 * Not all of the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, but in many cases they are. Even when there is just one source of information, it's most often directly from published research. Unfortunately, the O18 isotope research presented with differing results over two sections are not digital, which prevents casual Wikipedia users like me from being able to help correct the inconsistencies. I realize that there is nothing wrong with print sources, but in 2022 that makes it challenging to utilize.
 * Some sources are old, but still present currently correct information.
 * The sources also appear to be written by diverse authors, as many of them are researchers.
 * Some of the most famous researchers of Mono Lake are not listed as sources, but I'm not sure if that's a mistake that needs fixing as their research is now rather old and more modern hydro/meteorological methods have prevailed. I guess I'd say that if a section specific to the hydrology of Mono Lake existed, or if evaporation or climate were elaborated upon in the article, some of the most notable researchers in Mono Lake history would be referenced. It's also possible that so much hydro/meteorological research has been conducted there, that a "research history of Mono Lake" section would also suffice.

Organization and writing quality

 * The article is clear and well-written, divided into appropriate topic sections, and I catch no grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * The article includes excellent images that are well-captioned, and that enhance understanding of the topic.
 * All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * I think that the images are laid out in the article in enough of a visually appealing way, but it's possible that they could be presented in a way that is more aesthetically appealing.

Talk page discussion

 * There have been lots of interesting conversations about the Mono Lake Wikipedia article in it's Talk Page.
 * I'll repeat the page's main debate from earlier in this review: User hike395 (talk) in the talk page indicates that the sections on Lake Level History and Paleoclimate added by Evalinghan are overlapping and don't seem entirely consistent. He is correct, but both sections have inconsistent and/or confusing information, and both sections have strong sources. It is also indicated (correctly, I think) by another user that both sections are overly academic and un-parsible by the general public.
 * I would agree that the disagreeing paleoclimatic information is not only confusing to readers, but even if the sources agreed it takes the article into a "non-encyclopedic" realm of scientific jargon not understandable by lay-people. I'm pretty advanced compared to a lay-person when it comes to water research, and I'd need to do serious research to determine these inconsistencies. And even then it would remain highly technical and perhaps inappropriate for Wiki audiences. I think both authors could have streamlined a the paleoclimate records into a timeline that would be easy for viewers to read.
 * I love the discussion on pop culture and musical references, and enjoy seeing a discussion about streamlining the images.
 * The article is rated B-class, high-importance to the WikiProject California and rated B-class, mid-importance to the WikiProject Lakes.

Overall impressions

 * I'm not sure how to determine what the article's overall status is, but it is launched and live with a tag that says,
 * "This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (February 2021)".
 * It is also rated B-class in the two WikiProjects with which it's affiliated.
 * The article is strong in overall information it provides, but it's missing a section about lake hydrology and it's possible that the environmental historical research summarized is both too technical and inconsistent.
 * I think it's clear that this article is incomplete but nearly complete, and that it is still poorly developed in just a couple of areas. 90% of the article is well-composed, well-developed, and well-representative of Mono Lake.