User:Tiffanyd4L/sandbox

Cladocera Article Evaluation
Content

In general, the content is relevant to the the article topic. The Etymology subsection seems unnecessary to the article, as it does not support any main topics or provide enough information to warrant its own section. The information is not out of date, however it was last edited in February 2011, indicating that it could be improved and updated as new discoveries on the topic may have been made in the last 8 years. There are details that could be added to the Ecology section and the Etymology subsection to improve the quality of the article. Additionally, there are several links within the Taxonomy subsection that reference pages that do not exist. By adding accurate and relevant pages for these linked articles, the Cladocera article could be improved.

Tone

The tone of this article is neutral. The content is presented in a factual manner and is not heavily biased toward a particular position. The Ecology and Etymology sections are rather underrepresented.

Sources

The links in the references section work. They are reliable sources, including scientific journals and books, which take a neutral tone towards the topic. The sources support the claims in the article and each fact presented in the article is referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference.

Talk Page

This article is a part of the Arthropods WikiProject. There are no conversations regarding this article. It has been rated C-Class on the project's quality scale and Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article discusses the topic similarly to the way it was briefly discussed in class, emphasizing factual information on this species. However, in class the use of this species as an indication for eutrophication, climate change, phosphorus, and acidification was discussed, however this information was not presented in the Wikipedia article.

Article Selection & Evaluations
Potential topics:

Drawdown (hydrology)
The content is relevant to the topic, however it is missing a lot of important information that may improve the reader's experience on this article's page. The article is written neutrally. It is void of bias and personal opinions. The information in this article is presented in scientific facts. Only one of the claims has a citation, while the entire introductory section does not have citations. In my opinion, this section should have citations as the information is factual. There is only one citation in this article, however, it is reliable. The source is from the University of Utrecht, in the Netherlands.I think that in order to improve this article, there should be several additions and clarifications. Much of the information present in the article could be elaborated and cited, which is an improvement that I intend on following through with. Additionally, I would like to add some information regarding the calculation methods to retrieve drawdown, as well as the uses of this parameter.

Marine Ecosystem
The content in this article is relevant to the topic, however in my opinion there are many potential additions to this article that would improve its quality. For example, elaborating on the types of marine ecosystems section. The article is unbiased and written in a neutral manner. Additionally, the "Threats to marine ecosystems" section could be improved by adding factual information on each listed threat.

Forest ecology
The content in this article is relevant to the topic and is presented in an unbiased, neutral fashion. This article could definitely be improved by adding some relevant information. For example, there could be a section related to wildfire occurrence and the impacts of this type of ecosystem disturbance. Additionally, there are several types of forest ecosystems, as well as the topic of deforestation, that could be mentioned in the article. This article has roughly 9 sources, however many of them are missing titles of the works cited, links, etc. This could be improved in reviewing this article.

Adding a Citation
In the article Drawdown (hydrology), I added the following citation to a definition at the beginning of the article:


 * https://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/hod/SHManual/SHMan014_glossary.htm

CopyEdit an Article
Article: Drawdown (hydrology)

Unedited:
In water-related science and engineering there are two similar but distinct definitions in use for drawdown.


 * In subsurface hydrogeology, drawdown is the reduction in hydraulic head observed at a well in an aquifer, typically due to pumping a well as part of an aquifer test or well test.
 * In surface water hydrology and civil engineering, drawdown refers to the lowering of the water level in a man-made reservoir or tank.

In either case, drawdown is the change in head or water level relative to background condition, indicating the difference in head which has occurred at a given location relative to an initial time at the same location.

Edited:
In water-related science and engineering, there are two similar but distinct definitions in use for the word drawdown:


 * In subsurface hydrogeology, drawdown is the reduction in hydraulic head observed at a well in an aquifer, typically due to pumping a well as part of an aquifer test or well test.
 * In surface water hydrology and civil engineering, drawdown refers to the lowering of the surface elevation of a body of water, the water table, the piezometric surface, or the water surface of a well, as a result of the withdrawal or water.

In either case, drawdown is the change in hydraulic head or water level relative to the initial spatial and temporal conditions of the system. Drawdown is often represented in a cross-sectional diagram of an aquifer.

Finalizing Topic
I have chosen the article Drawdown (hydrology) for my topic. I will making improvements to the current state of the article through elaborating on existing information on the page, as well as adding new information relevant to the topic.

Drawdown (hydrology)
In water-related science and engineering, there are two similar but distinct definitions in use for the word drawdown:


 * In subsurface hydrogeology, drawdown is the reduction in hydraulic head observed at a well in an aquifer, typically due to pumping a well as part of an aquifer test or well test.
 * In surface water hydrology and civil engineering, drawdown refers to the lowering of the surface elevation of a body of water, the water table, the piezometric surface, or the water surface of a well, as a result of the withdrawal or water.

In either case, drawdown is the change in hydraulic head or water level relative to the initial spatial and temporal conditions of the system. Drawdown is often represented in cross-sectional diagrams of aquifers. A record of hydraulic head, or rate of flow (discharge), versus time is more generally called a hydrograph (in both groundwater and surface water). The main contributor to groundwater drawdown since the 1960s is over-exploitation of groundwater resources.

Drawdown occurs in response to:


 * 1) pumping from the bore
 * 2) interference from a neighbouring pumping bore
 * 3) in response to local, intensive groundwater pumping
 * 4) regional seasonal decline due to discharge in excess of recharge

Terminology

 * Aquifer is an underground layer of permeable rock or sand, that hold or transmit groundwater below the water table that yield a significant supply of water to a well.
 * Aquifer test (or a pumping test) is a field experiment in which a well is pumped at a controlled rate and the aquifer's response (drawdown) is measured in one or more observation wells.
 * Cone of Depression is a conically-shaped depression that is produced in a water table as a result of pumping water from a well at a given rate.
 * Groundwater is water located beneath the earth's surface in pores and fractures of soil and rocks.
 * Hydraulic head (or piezometric head) is a specific measurement of the potential of water above a vertical datum. It is the height of the free surface of water above a given point beneath the surface.
 * Pumping level is the level of water in the well during pumping.
 * Specific capacity is the well yield per unit of drawdown.
 * Static level is the level of water in the well when no water is being removed from the well by pumping.
 * Water table is the upper level of the zone of saturation, an underground surface in which the soil or rock is permanently saturated with water.
 * Well yield is the volume of water per unit time that is produced by the well from pumping.

Methods for Measuring Drawdown[edit]

 * Transducers, are used to measure water levels in groundwater wells, rivers, streams, tanks, open channels and lift stations.
 * Acoustic Well Sounders or Echometers, are a simple, cost effective, and minimally intrusive tool used to measure subsurface pressures and levels.
 * Electric Sounders, are a practical land cost-effective method used to measure well water levels. This method uses a weight attached to a stranded insulated wire and an ammeter to indicate a closed circuit. Current supplied from a small battery flows through the circuit when the tip of the wire is in contact with the surface of the water.
 * Air Line Method, is a convenient and nonintrusive method used to measure water levels that is often used for the repeated testing of wells over 300 feet deep . This method obtains water table depth using a pressure gauge and water displacement.
 * Wetted Tape Method, is a commonly-used method for measuring water levels up to roughly 90 feet deep. This method uses a lead weight attached to a steel measuring tape.

Ecological Impacts of Groundwater Drawdown
Groundwater drawdown due to excessive water extraction can have adverse ecological impacts. Groundwater environments often have high biodiversity, however, drawdown alters the amount and types of nutrients released to surrounding organisms. In addition, nearby wetlands, fisheries, terrestrial and aquatic habitats may be altered with a reduction in the water available to these ecosystems, sometimes altering species ecophysiology.

Extracting groundwater at a rate that is faster than it can be naturally replenished is often referred to as overdrafting. Overdrafting may decrease the amount of groundwater that naturally feeds surrounding water bodies, including wetlands, lakes, rivers and streams. Additionally, when a cone of depression is formed around a pumping well due to groundwater extraction, nearby groundwater sources may flow toward the well to replenish the cone, taking water from local streams and lakes. This may result in poor water quality in these local water bodies as baseflow water contribution is reduced, which could result in perennial streams becoming more intermittent, and intermittent streams becoming more ephemeral. Finally, drawdown from groundwater extraction may lead to an increased sensitivity of the ecosystem to climate change and may be a contributing factor to sea-level rise and land subsidence.

Peer Reviews
The following peer reviews can also be found in the "Talk" page of each user's sandbox.

Marine Ecosystem, by Andrewlin1
Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. There is nothing that distracted me on this article. It is well laid out and organized. The article content is presented in an unbiased manner, and is neutral. In my opinion, there are some sections that are underrepresented. Some sections that I think are underrepresented are the “Ecosystem services” section and the “Threats to marine ecosystems” section. I think that there is room for a lot of modifications and improvements to this article. For example, the “Threats to marine ecosystems” section can be improved by providing detailed descriptions of the types of threats, as well as the examples listed under each. In addition, I would suggest that the user supports each fact with a reliable reference, as this is lacking throughout the at the moment. Overall, the information is great and extremely insightful. I can already see the improvements that the user has made to the article. Great work so far!

Groundwater recharge, by Polidoroal
All of the information in the article is relevant to the topic and is presented in an unbiased manner. I think that the user's decision to add a section on the article on the factors affecting groundwater recharge made a great addition to the article. With the relevance of climate change in today's society, this is a great way to incorporate the topic to that of the chosen article. I don't find that any of the information is over- or underrepresented. The references are all from reliable sources and the facts are well cited. The only criticism that I have is that the second half of the "urbanization" subsection is missing citations for the factual information presented. Besides this, I think the user has done a great job at presenting interesting, relevant, and unbiased information. Amazing work!

Response to Peer Reviews on my Talk Page
Camille's peer review was extremely helpful in guiding me and ensuring that I was on the right track. After reading her review, I modified my work and updated my references, removing those from other wikipedia pages. The review has inspired me to deepen my research and obtain more primary sources to support my final additions to the article. Overall, I'm thankful for her review and am excited to keep working on finalizing my article.

Reflective Essay
Throughout this experience, I have learned a lot about the Wikipedia community, as well as the editing process of Wikipedia articles. By completing article evaluations, I learned how to use my critical thinking skills to identify content gaps, biases, unreliable sources, among other article characteristics that require attention and possible modifications. My approach in critiquing the article that I selected for this assignment was to read the entire article in the state in which I found it, and jot down notes regarding the content, tone, sources, and talk page of the article along the way. After reading through it, I would sort through my notes and elaborate on the remarks that I thought were important to note in my evaluation. After doing this, I knew what I wanted to add to this article to improve the contents. I have taken several courses related to the topic such as soil science, hydrology, hydrogeology and hydrologic modelling, giving me a lot of insight on drawdown from the get-go. With this background knowledge, I knew what I wanted to add to my chosen article after reading it.

To improve my article, I knew I wanted to add a section on relevant terminology, as it would help with the reader’s understanding of the topic. Some of the terms that I included with definitions in this section are: aquifer, cone of depression, hydraulic head, water table, well yield, and many more. I also knew that it may be worthwhile to add a section listing and explaining some common methods used to measure drawdown in the field. Finally, I wanted to add a section on the ecological impacts that result from groundwater drawdown to raise awareness and hopefully provide the reader with insight on the ramifications of this process.

My peer review process was extremely similar to that which I used to complete article evaluations. This entails looking at the content, tone and sources, as well as looking for any grammatical or formatting errors that stood out to me. The peer reviews left on my article were extremely helpful in informing me of what stood out from my article from an outsider’s point of view. My recommendations were to add some primary sources, which I intend on doing before finalizing my article. I was also recommended to make minor formatting changes, which I completed. Overall, the feedback from my peers was a good motivation to keep going through with my planned edits and informed me that I was on the right track.

Overall, I learned a lot from contributing to Wikipedia in the last couple months. This assignment was different from past assignments because there is a certain standard that comes with creating work that is going to be posted on one of the most popular websites on the Internet, available to the public. This encouraged me to work extremely hard and only put out my best work.