User:Sarahjowens/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.


 * San Diego County Water Authority: (San Diego Water Authority)
 * I have chosen this article, as I would like to add more content to develop a more informative wiki page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead includes a description of the SDCWA and what their role is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the Lead does not go over the major sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead talks about the people that are served by the SDCWA, but doesn't have a section/mention those people again in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Neither. The Lead could use more information with more description of the articles major sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? It seems like there is missing current content, when looking at the history of the page, the last edit was in 2018. I think there is changes and missing information from the last two years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?There is content missing to flesh out the article and to give more information about the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? It seemed over-all neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the first sentence of the "history" section seemed to be a little biased or leaned in favor of the SDCWA.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it seems like the rest of the article is unbiased and neutral; the article presents general information.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, the "history" section looks like it has no sources or references. The "water sources" section has good references which are from legislative, newspaper, radio, and government websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is more available literature on the topic which could be included.
 * Are the sources current? The most recent sources are from May 2018. So no they are not up to date.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Two of the ".gov" links did not work, but the rest lead to active web pages.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is easy but needs needs work on being more concise
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are many run on sentences and other grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is organized, but there are only 3 major topics, references, and external links. Although short it is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is no images in this article, and they would be a great addition to the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Although there are no images there are sport in this short article that would enhance the article greatly.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations on the talk page for this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This specific article do not have a rating on the projects important scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article talks about the history which we have discussed in class regarding water in different areas. I think that it goes more into depth of the history, and go into less depth in the water sources section which we would be covering more of in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The status of the article is "Start-Class"
 * What are the article's strengths? The history background is detailed and well organized.
 * How can the article be improved? Addition of more major topics, and more information within those topics. Citations and references need work as well.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped, and what work is done could use some more fine tuning.

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 — ~ : My question is what past and current project has the SCDWA completed/ wish to be completed?


 * Link to feedback: