User:Scocougs7/Occupational toxicology/Ash.cobbler Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
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?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

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

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

(Scocougs7)

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Scocougs7/Occupational toxicology
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Occupational toxicology

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I feel as though you have not really added any information on the topic of Occupational Toxicology that was not already provided in the original article. I am unsure if you have published it elsewhere, but all that I see in your sandbox, as of 11/15/23 @9:33 am is the following:

"It focuses on substances and conditions that people may be exposed to in workplaces. While inhalation exposure and dermal exposure are most important and obvious, there is often exposure to mixtures of chemicals whose interactions may be complex. These environmental and individual exposures can impact health, and there is a focus on identifying early adverse affects that are more subtle than those presented in clinical medicine.

A major use of this data is for"

You have not added any new sources nor have you added anything constructive to the article itself.

I did a quick google search of occupational therapy papers and saw a good amount of previous concerns about a variety of toxicant exposures that have been investigated in the workplace. I think this may be an interesting thing for you to look into and could include under the history aspect of this article. This information could be beneficial because it would give examples of "common" workplace exposures and what to look out for potentially. This would give you an opportunity to add some new sources to the original article as well as useful information.

here are a few links to some papers I thought might be cool just to get you on a different track:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563658408992563

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1547691X.2013.789940

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563650.2010.506876

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.99107s2245

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209379111122002X

https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/biotemas/article/view/35379

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19338244.2018.1535482

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/resp.14272

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-020-00378-8

Hope some of these help.

My apologies I had accidentally edited the paper directly instead of putting everything in the sandbox first. I appreciate your feedback and the articles you found. Those articles do contain a lot of good information and if I were to continue making edits to this paper I would definitely reference several of them. I feel as though it would be interesting and beneficial to the article to provide examples of common chemical exposures in the workplace.