Talk:Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrwolff21. Peer reviewers: Mvaba00.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Wolff's Peer Review

A lead section that is easy to understand

• The lead section is a great summary that describes what occurs as well as the underlining main topic -- Early environmental laws in California. After reading the entire article, the lead section mentions the important details.

A clear structure

• The structure of the article is great, it lays out the geographic area, the start of mining in california, the relevant mining techniques, and slowly focused into the main issue.

Balanced coverage

• Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? I find the geographic section "too big" of a portion of the article. The information present is too broad, if the lead section didn't mention "Central Valley farmers" I would not have known the area of interest. I think there should be a focus on the central valley as the information present gives no reason for mining to take place there. The "Discovery of Gold" discusses why the central valley is a material rich area, maybe have another source for the "Central Valley" section as to why it is a material rich zone. I don't see North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company's perspective and argument, if it took 2 years to reach a decision I'm sure they had an interesting argument to write about.

Neutral content

• The content is neutral.

Reliable sources

• CSUS actually has resources that has records of the legal California cases, the "Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company" case could be in there. Great amount of sources.

NaoBao (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Noah for your comments. I'm glad you mentioned the geography section; I was thinking it was a bit too broad as well. I am currently looking for more info on North Bloomfield. I'm hoping to find some info in newspaper archives considering the lack of info on the internet. Anyways, thanks again for your comments! They were really helpful. Rrwolff21 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is an incredibly thorough and well done article. I think you give great context to the case, but I would caution you to avoid unnecessary information. For instance, your descriptions of different environments in California could be limited to, or at least more focused on the Central Valley, since that is the area that the lawsuit is based on. Also, make sure that bias does not come through in the descriptions of mining techniques and impacts. Although depicting the harmful effects of mining is necessary to this article, trigger words like "even worse" and "shady" take away some neutrality.Mvaba00 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Mikayla for your comments. They were really helpful. I appreciate you pointing out the bias as that was something I totally didn't pick up on. I'll definitely spend some time making my article more neutral and removing access info. Thanks again for your review! Rrwolff21 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Farah Peer review response

Thank you so much! I totally forgot to connect Trematoda to Kuwait. I fixed it as soon as I read your response. Fkalrubaiee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback

This is an excellent, well-cited article on a very important topic. Congrats on your hard work! Just a few polishing suggestions:
1. For "California Gold Rush" and "Hydraulic Mining" sections, provide a notice+link to the main article for those titles, e.g. see the "History" section of [California]
2. The link in "water played a central role in the hydraulic mining process" goes to something about mixing; should be mining
3. Do a final spelling check
Julianfulton (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)