User:Amandoff/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Health effects of pesticides
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I have a strong interest in the topic. Pesticides are harmful chemicals that the average individual comes into contact with every day. Pesticides are in our food and can be found in our water, and it's important to understand how these chemicals affect humans.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
'''The Lead does introduce the topic, but I think the first sentence(s) could provide a bit more explanation of what a pesticide is and what it is used for. The Lead doesn't really include a brief description of the article's major sections, but rather introduces a few facts that aren't directly described in the article sections. The Lead is a bit too concise, and doesn't provide the best picture of what the article is about.'''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
'''The article's sections and content are relevant to the topic. The content doesn't seem to be completely up to date, and most sections of the article have not been fleshed out enough. For example, in the Route of Exposure section, the article describes the positives of the organic food system, but it fails to recognize the potentially harmful effects of organic pesticides. It would also be useful to provide information about the most prevalent pesticides, their chemical composition, and their specific health effects.'''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
'''This article appears to be neutral, though it does seem to be written in a more biased way. Some word choice appears to be biased. This may be because there is a lot of research to show that pesticides do indeed produce negative health effects. Thus, it may persuade the reader into believing that all pesticides are harmful to humans. I think it would be interesting to include studies that have seen no correlation between pesticides and human health, though I'm not sure if there are any.'''

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
'''All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information whose links appear to work. The sources are thorough and range from news articles, journals, and meta-analyses. The main issue with the sources is that they're not very current. The most recent source is from 2015, and many of the other sources are from 10+ years ago.'''

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
'''I think the organization of this article is good, but it would be much more impactful if the article focused on a few specific pesticides and dove into more detail, rather than just surface information about potential symptoms from exposure. It is easy to read, but it is far too concise for the average reader who wants to learn more about this topic. I think the Other Animals section is a bit too bare and sort of awkward. It should either be explained and other animals should be described, or it should be eliminated all together. I don't see any spelling errors, but there are sentences that could be reworded.'''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
'''There is only one image on this article, and although it is about pesticides and humans, it lacks excitement. The words on the image illustrate more than the image alone. The image is cited, but it is not well captioned. This image should either be replaced or other images should be added in addition to this image in order to better align with the sections of the article.'''

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
'''There are a few conversations about adding more information to the article and focusing on different pesticides, since it appears to be lacking in most areas. The addition of more current and relevant research articles and focusing on specific pesticides would make it a more developed article. This article was rated C-Class and is High-Importance on the WikiProject Medicine.'''

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
'''I think this article is a decent rough draft of this topic, but there are a significant number of things that need improvement. Overall, I think it is underdeveloped or maybe even poorly developed. I think this article would benefit from more detailed research into specific pesticides, both their chemical composition as well as their acute and long-term effects on humans. The Route of Exposure section could be longer and potentially broken up into multiple sections (ex. food, water).'''

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Health effects of pesticides