User:Zoe.demitrack/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: Kesterson Reservoir
 * I chose this article because I've read books about reservoirs in this area and the birds that use them, and so the content of the article was intriguing. My dad also lives somewhat near this spot in California, so it would be cool to learn more about the spot and then visit the reservoir.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The lead includes two sentences, one describing the geographic location of the reservoir, the other describing how the site gained national attention.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a table of contents, but there are no brief descriptions of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise (only two sentences long). It may perhaps need a bit more detail.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * A lot of the background is not specific to the Kesterson Reservoir in specific. Most of it belongs in a page specific to the San Joaquin Valley. The information is too general.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, the most recent date given in the article is 1981.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article is missing a section dedicated to remediation efforts, perhaps a section on uses of the reservoir, environmental policy that affects the reservoir, recreational uses, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don't think so. There was no mention of indigenous people in any of the articles I read on Kesterson.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article only mentions the selenium pollution, and not other possible factors contributing (or at least affecting) the decline in waterfowl.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The only topic mentioned in detail is the selenium event.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, not really.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. A fair amount of the agricultural information is not backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No. There are only 6 sources listed. 615 sources were listed when I searched "Kesterson Reservoir" in the UCONN database.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No. The most recent source is from 2007.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No. The talk page is very limited, and less than 30 people have edited this page.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. I checked about 5-6 links and they all worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No. The article jumps back and forth in time.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes - the article's grammar is terrible. The article jumps back and forth between tenses, so much so that I get a bit confused reading through the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. There are only 2 sections (not including the lead).

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is only one image. The article could use a lot more pictures and graphs.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, since there aren't really any.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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 have been very few conversations and debates.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I could not find this information.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The wikipedia article does not go into detail on selenium and how it may affect waterfowl at different stages of development. The article also does not go into any environmental justice.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, this article is a very rough draft that needs plenty of work (both in terms of structure and grammar, and also content)
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I honestly don't see any.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * In a major way, expanding the outline so that there are more sections to guide future editors. Also, adding more imagery and collecting more sources would be very helpful.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Poorly developed.

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: Talk:Kesterson Reservoir