User:Wolfjr100/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Evaluating article: Complete communities

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

There is a definite difference in writing style and tone between the History section and the Defining Elements section. Everything stays on topic, however, the Defining Elements sections very plainly lays out definitions which don't always seem relevant to the term they are defining.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article is very consistent in keeping a neutral tone throughout the article. There does seem to be one thing under the Defining Elements section: "Especially in the United States, widened and expanded metropolitan areas led to poor inner-suburb communities, which worked to destroy the connection to neighbourhoods, institutions, parks and town centres." A source is cited which cannot be tracked.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Between the multiple sections of the article, the History section seems to be overrepresented compared to the Defining Elements section simply in the fact that the History is told not only chronologically, but by also defining key terms necessary to understand the whole story. On the other hand, the Defining Elements sections seems to very plainly define certain terms without giving much context into new terms being introduced by the definition. This section is dry and seems very rushed.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

There seems to be a citation error with the 21st citation: " |first2= missing |last2= in Authors list (help)" There is no link to the source, so there is no way to cross check it.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Many sources seem to be primary sources, like the City of Austin Comprehensive Plan. Although because of the nature of this article in that it is introduced as a concept that is adopted and defined by each individual community, a primary resource may be appropriate when generating examples.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Everything is generally up-to-date with sources being accessed as of 2016.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The talk page seems to be responses from peer reviewers only responding to a student assignment and offering suggestions on grammatical errors.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is or was part of the Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The concept of "Complete Communities" does not come up nearly as often as one might think. I reviewed this article for two reasons, to learn about Complete Communities, and to complete an Article Evaluation assignment. I do not have previous context about complete communities to be able to compare Wikipedia's definition. After reviewing the article, everything seems to make sense and follows the ideas of the topic. There may not be much discussion or literature on the term "Complete Communities" itself particularly because, in my opinion, it isn't a buzz word like "environmental justice" is or any of the other things that all do some part to work towards what Complete communities describes.

Article Draft

The following sources were found using the Cal Poly Library's One Search tool:

Cameron, U. The History of San Gabriel Valley (1938): ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web.

• Any material concerning the Sierra Madre Dam cites Collins' thesis.

♥Collins, A. The Sierra Madre Dam: Its Inception and Design (1932): ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web.

• This source is listed as unpublished and is not fully available to Cal Poly Students through the library, merely a preview is available which still has some valuable information.
• All of the other listed sources cite this as a source concerning the Sierra Madre Dam either only slightly changing the original wording and sentence structure or quoting verbatim.

Cummings, Naomi. The Civil Functions of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army as Related to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (1953): ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web.

• Any material concerning the Sierra Madre Dam cites Collins' thesis.

Fessier, Margery. Science Instruction through the Study of Water (1955): ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web.

• Merely lists the Sierra Madre Dam as a site to take elementary school students on a field trip.

Sierra Madre Dam

History

As a result of the flood of 1914, which caused an estimated $10,000,000 in property damage, in the San Gabriel Valley, the California Legislature implemented The Los Angeles County Flood Control Act that entailed a systematic study for flood relief. Results showed an average of 60,000 acre feet of water, valuing between half a million to one million dollars, being wasted from the San Gabriel Mountain watershed into the ocean that could otherwise be conserved and domestically used for nearly half a million people.

In 1924, a bond issue was approved by voters in the amount of $35,300,00 to build systems that would store and conserve water including eight dams - Thompson Creek, Big Dalton, San Gabriel, Big Santa Anita, Eaton Canyon, Big Tujunga, Pacoima, Puddingstone, and Sierra Madre.