User:Nataliea2000/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: 2011–2017 California drought
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because it a topic that relates to my major and is geographically close to my hometown. The California droughts had a significant impact on my childhood growing up although I lived in an adjacent state, the issue still predominated.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Lead states the dates in which the drought occurred and that it was the driest recorded period in the state's history.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead describes the time period of the drought, what caused the drought, which drought years were the driest, and when the drought ended.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it mentions the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge" which is the suspected cause of prevented precipitation from reaching California.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. It mentions the extent of the drought and some of the effects that are detailed later in the Wikipedia article.

Lead evaluation
Overall, this is a strong lead. The article however, could expand on the impacts of the California drought. For example, mentioning more of the human health impacts and economic impacts the drought had on California residents.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? All of the article's content is relevant to the California drought.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The content is updated to include the that the drought officially ended in spring of 2019, no further information is given.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I did not find any content that did not belong. However, this article could be expanded to include more information involving the California drought. If the purpose of this Wikipedia article is to give a synopsis of the 2011-2017 California drought then, I think that it accomplishes this.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
Overall, content is strong but varies depending on which year of the California drought is being described. The 2014 section included many paragraphs while every other year section has 1-3 paragraphs.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint of the environmental impacts is of main focus to the article. Underrepresented viewpoints may be an economic viewpoint or human heath viewpoint.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, this article is unbiased and does not actively sway readers to favor one way of thinking over another. One way this article may be acting to sway readers is if it put an emphasis on climate change as the leading cause of the drought, without enough scientific evidence.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? From my perspective, it seems that the article's facts are backed up by reliable sources. Some include CBS News and the World Economic Forum. Most of the articles are from news outlets, more scientific articles would be better.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I analyze few sources and they are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? All of the sources were published from 2011-2019 which makes them relevant to the article and current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It seems like the authors are typically white men of academia. I am not sure if it was possible to have greater representation.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links that I clicked on worked. However one of the links just took me to the LA Times website, no specific article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, this Wikipedia article is well written and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is broken down to each year of the drought. Readers can easily understand the development of the drought from 2011-2017.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, one of the images is a photo of Folsom Lake which is very low. Other images show the public outreach for residents to conserve water during the drought. Another image is a gif colored map of the progression of the California drought from 2011-2017. One critique I have is that the images are very small, if they were larger it would look nicer and get the image's point across effectively. You can click on the images to blow them up but I think having larger images for readers as soon as they click on the article catches their attention and increases their understand; especially if they are unfamiliar with how to use Wikipedia.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, I can understand what is shown in the image based off of the caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they are all cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, they are all crammed on the right-hand side of the document.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One of the conversations discusses the end of the drought and changing the article to represent that. Another conversation mentions that the article should highlight climate change as the cause of the drought but another editor chimes in to say that the article should mention every known cause of the drought.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is a C-class article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not relevant.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Overall, the article's status is a C-class article.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article succeeds in presenting clear and concise information. Readers will clearly understand the causes, some effects, and the mitigation efforts during the drought.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by generating a neater article format so pictures and text is easily digestible. More scientific sources can be cited and effects that the drought had can be expanded.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is just below well-developed, it includes necessary information but is lacking in presenting all of the relevant information on the topic. Perhaps more Wikipedia articles can be generated to expand on the topic.

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: