User:SarHasUCSC/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cannabis in California

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I'm currently conducting a literature review on cannabis irrigation practices used in Northern California and their environmental impacts. The sources I've found contain valuable and credible information that is related to this article. This article doesn't have much information on irrigation practices or environmental impacts so I think the sources I have found will contribute new information to the article.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead section is informative, but doesn't give a clear outline for the rest of the article. It seems to focus more on the legality of cannabis in California, while the rest of the article touches on many other facets of cannabis in California as well. I also noticed a lack of citations for many of the claims made in the lead section.

Content: The article focuses extensively on the history of cannabis in California and provides ample citations and information on various propositions and laws related to cannabis in the state. However, the introductory "Current State and Local Regulation" section seems out of place. It includes valuable information, but much smaller subsections than the History section. I noticed a lack of information in the cultivation section specifically. It mentions the legality of cultivation again, but doesn't address cultivation practices (including irrigation), and the environmental impacts of them.

Tone: The article seems to have somewhat of a bias towards legalization of cannabis in California. It also makes certain grand statements like "...Humboldt County, which was to become one of the nation's most famous centers of cannabis production" (Cannabis in California) without citations.

References: I noticed lack of citations for many claims, and lots of news articles in the references. I think many of the cited news articles could be replaced with peer-reviewed sources.

Organization: The article is fairly well organized

Images: The article lacks many images

Talk page: there is a talk page! But it hasn't been updated in awhile. I made some comments but haven't received responses yet.

Overall impression: I think the article has a solid start but could use more information in some sections, and definitely more citations.