Talk:Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Water

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydneyberrios, Haleywalters23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wooleymammoth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cynthiacano.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outline feedback[edit]

Hi Haley,

I'm glad you're building this page. This outline needs to be fleshed out quite a bit for the assignment and include sources that you're going to use for building this page.

Also, how are you and Sydney going to divide the work?

Julianfulton (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haley :) Here is my review... (I didn't realize I was editing the wrong Haley, so here is an extra review :p sorry! Great job btw)

1. I represent the audience who doesn’t know anything about the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. It would be nice to have a nice lead paragraph to open the article and give an overview about this ACT, reflecting the most important facts you will hit on throughout the wiki page. I like to think of this as the abstract of this wiki page! I think this would help people like me better understand the relevance and background to this ACT so I feel comfortable with the knowledge you later give. I would also switch the second with the first paragraph under the section AB 1739, personally I find it nice when its specific and then gets general (from the start). Also, great timeline, very impressive! 2. I might suggest creating several subtitles within the AB 1739 such as an introduction to the act, who is involved, and then the authorization and implementations you went into. Creating more sections will create flow, organization, and clarity especially to people who don’t know much about the topic. (Haley I am sure you are already planning on doing all of this already, just doing this assignment!) 3. I see a very nice balance in this wiki page. I love that you address criticism to keep the bias low. You have inspired me to add some viewpoints into my wiki page. 4. I cannot guess the perspective of the writer, Haley! Awesome job keeping this neutral, I am having a hard time doing this myself. Side Note: you clearly know this topic, I am so not aware of this content so it made it hard to follow a little because it was so new to me. This article appeals to a more specific audience rather than the general public, that might be the right way to write it or not I do not know, just letting you know my perspective! 5. You have reliable references from government pages and university pages, both reliable. I am sure you will have a ton more once you finish this page up. 6. Nice job Haley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori Sepulveda (talk • contribs) 06:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Response

Hi Tori,

Thanks for the feedback. Your peer review is very thorough so it will help out a lot. Sydney, who I am sharing the page with, is doing the introduction, or "lead." You had a really great point about switching the paragraphs under AB 1739. I definitely need to create more sections for flow. The content is very new to me so I'm still trying to simplify it better for readers who are not familiar with the topic. Getting through all the bill language/jargon has been challenging, so I'm glad you pointed that the general public would have a difficult time reading it.

Thanks again! Haleywalters23 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Accidentally, I edited your page instead of Haley Robinson's page! Awesome to hear you are partnering with Sydney on this page, sounds like you two have a great plan. Nice work you two! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori Sepulveda (talk • contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Overall I think that your page is in great shape, the coverage was balanced, the content was neutral and you used very reliable sources. I would just consider adding a lead section that clearly states the most important information of the article and since your article is an Act it would probably be a good idea to sum the Act up in layman terms. Also, you may consider incorporating in SB 1319 with the AB 1739 section since they both work together to establish authority to the state water resources control board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desirey12 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]