User:Sabina Mahavni/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: Renewable Energy in California
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

This article aligns with my PE's area, which is renewable energy resources. Though GRID Alternatives operates nationwide and internationally, the organization was founded in Oakland, CA and has strong roots fighting for access to renewable energy technology and jobs for communities in California.

Lead

Guiding questions

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead's introductory sentence simply states that California produces more renewable energy that any other state but doesn't really provide any indication of what the rest of the article will be about. The lead mainly focuses on how much renewable energy California as a state produces/uses, which is very relevant to both the title and the bulk of the article. But much of the article describes different kinds of renewable energy and the history of each kind within California's past, so I think it would be beneficial to include something about the types of renewable energy/technology somewhere in the lead. Other than that, the lead is fairly concise and not overly detailed.

Lead:

"California produces more renewable energy than any other state in the United States. In 2018, California ranked first in the nation as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources and fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation. As of 2017, over half of the electricity (52.7%) produced was from renewable sources."

Content

Guiding questions

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The article's content is definitely relevant to the topic because it describes both the different types of renewable energy generation and how each of those fit into California's current energy production and past production. I think the content is fairly up-to-date, seeing as the last update to the article itself was February 28, 2020, and a majority of the references were cited no earlier than 2019. The article focuses a lot on past state initiatives to promote renewable energy but doesn't mention many plans or commitments to future renewable energy production, so I think it would be helpful to include California's stated promises regarding the future of renewable energy generation.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The article seems very neutral and objective, and no claims appear heavily biased. Each type of renewable energy receives comparable space in the article, so it doesn't seem like the article favors any one type over the others.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Many of the references are from official sources like the U.S. Energy Information Administration or the California Energy Commission, but one source is an L.A. Times article titled, "California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it." The article presented a little bias in an effort to attract reader interest and may have not been the best choice for a source on a very objective subject.

Organization

Guiding questions

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The article is well-organized and has a clear structure, but within each section, there is not a lot of uniformity. Specifically, in the section titled "History of Hydroelectric Power Generation in California," the information doesn't flow as a timeline would, and it's a bit confusing. I think it would be better to structure each paragraph in the same ways starting with "In [INSERT YEAR], ....." to make things more clear and concise.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

There are only two images on the page. One is a graphic that shows the % renewable energy production by state, but it was published over a year ago, so it might be a little outdated. The second image is of the seal of the U.S. Department of Energy. I don't think the second image is particularly necessary or really relevant to the transparency of the information presented in the article, and I think it would be better to depict images of the different types of renewable energy themselves, such as a picture of a solar panel grid or a wind turbine. These images will catch the reader's attention and guide them through each section in a more straightforward manner.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

There are only two comments in the talk page, one encouraging the writer to add dates to all the statistics, since data in renewable energy changes frequently, and the other encouraging the writer to avoid including citations in the lead. The article was part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in early 2019 and was assigned one student/peer editor.

The article is within the scope of WikiProject California, WikiProject Environment, and WikiProject Energy -- all projects that have given this article a C-class rating and "low importance" ranking.

This article primarily focuses on objective facts and figures regarding renewable energy as a technological development, not including its implications on marginalized communities or even mentioning issues of environmental justice that we would likely touch on in class.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

I think the article does a decent job at presenting both the history of California's renewable energy sector and providing a brief background of each type of energy technology. But I do think there should be a section regarding the climate change movement as a whole, since the push for renewable falls within the scope of that movement if not at the forefront of it.

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:Renewable energy in California