User:Marthatnathistory/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
California Aqueduct

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I found this article on the article finder section of our class's Wikipedia page and I was surprised to see that such a large feature of California's water system is so low on the content rating scale. The California Aqueduct page is high on the California Wikiproject's importance scale but is currently listed as start class. After reading I noticed some gaps in important features of the article like the origins of the aqueduct, its' uses, and the current problems facing it which I hope to contribute to.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article is strong in some sections like the lead section which effectively sums up the article. The branches and hydrology sections are detailed and cover where the aqueduct diverts into different branches throughout California and which rivers impact the aqueduct. Sections on more recent developments to the aqueduct are less detailed and could use more diverse, peer reviewed sources. There's little to no information on evaporation in the aqueduct and how droughts have impacted this and the land subsistence section could use more detail. There is no section on the history of the building of the aqueduct.

There are some maps and photos depicting sections of the aqueduct but adding more photos would be helpful for readers to better grasp the scale and use of the aqueduct. Photos of land subsistence would be useful to visualize how portions of the aqueduct have sunk and how this has impacted infrastructure.

There has been some discourse in the talk section. Some of these include comments on the lack of information on evaporation and the history of the aqueduct.

Overall, it's a good start with strong, detailed sections but there are gaps in the history and issues facing the aqueduct that need to be added to.