ToshaDuncan

Welcome!

Hello, ToshaDuncan, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Diana's peer review

Dianadixi (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)In your article Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project, clear structure and reliable sources are worth noting in the first place. You develop a coherent description of the issue, starting with geomorphological features of the region, then turning to consistent analysis of the project itself, element by element, and ending with overview of supplemental projects coexisting with YBHP. This approach to structure is highly sensible and intuitive. All the sources are taken from official governmental and public sites, or peer-reviewed scholarly articles, nothing to be improved here. The content is almost exclusively neutral; I found only one insignificant case which can be attributed as judgmental, “an impressive 145,000 acre-feet of water storage” in the History section. I would not assess the lead section, as it was taken unchanged from the original Wikipedia article which you upgraded. At the same time you can elaborate the lead subsection that you created for the section Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project. In this section, you describe such its elements as Bowman Development, Dutch Flat No. 2 Development, Chicago Park Development, and Rollins Development. I think you should briefly mention them in the lead for this section, because it was unclear to me how exactly these four capacities are interrelated. Also, the first sentence of the section relates to YBHP history and can be moved to a corresponding section. The title of the section can be modified as well, since in its current form it simply duplicates the title of the entire article. I would also strongly recommend you to work on better balance of coverage. For instance, in the section Geomorphology of the Region you pay twice more attention to the Yuba River Watershed, compared to the Bear River watershed. In the section Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project, the description of Rollins Development takes disproportionately small volume compared to other elements. Finally, for final sections describing supplemental facilities, I would recommend you to keep more uniform approach to their representation. Currently, Drum-Spaulding Project is described with bullet points containing mostly specific quantitative data, while Yuba River Development Project is described with full sentences in a narrative from. From my subjective perspective, the latter approach is more opportune for an average reader. On the whole, the article on Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project demonstrates strong adherence to the standards established for encyclopedia articles, with rigorous approach to data accuracy and representation clarity which I will definitely incorporate while working with my own article. Apparent shortcomings are relatively insignificant and easily rectified.

Dianadixi (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)dianadixi (talk) 08:54 1 April 2019 (UTC) Diana

Non-free rationale for File:Yuba-Bear and Drum Spaulding Projects Schematic (Modeling Version).pdf

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Yuba-Bear and Drum Spaulding Projects Schematic (Modeling Version).pdf. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)