User:Cemes4/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chemophobia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I had never heard the term Chemophobia before and was curious to learn more after seeing the topic under chemistry pages.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The description is succinct. The first sentence clearly states the definition of the phobia in plain words. It briefly discusses what the article will discuss without displaying too much information at once.

Content: The content written is relevant to the topic. Content appears to be up to date with multiple references, the last edit was in August and does not appear to be currently worked on. There is a link to chemistry professor Pierre Laszlo that does not lead to anything. Article does not mention equity gaps and briefly discusses the effects of chemophobia. Cause and effects section does not go into much depth for each point and has less references than the other sections.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral and does not present any original ideas. The cause and effect section places emphasis on one group describing the phobia as an "epidemic" that shows some bias towards the topic. The article does not try to favour a specific viewpoint.

Sources and references: Reference 19 does not link to anything and leaves the message that there is a typo in the link. Other than that the article is well cited with reputable sources. Some sources cited multiple times throughout the article, could benefit from further research to solidify statements.

Organization and writing quality: The article is generally easy to read with the occasional wordy sentence. Organization is not an issue as this is a short article that does not cover many points. Sections are clearly defined. There are no grammatical errors.

Images and media: There are no images or media present in this article.

Talk Page Discussions: the article is part of wikiproject psychology and wikiproject chemistry. Most talk discussions have been rephrasing/ minor edits to improve clarity of the overall definition. Other edits included insertion of references or removing unreferenced materials.

Overall Impressions: It is rated C-class and marked as low importance. I agree with the classification assigned to the article. It does a good job of defining the topic in a clear way, but lacks depth. The article does not go into much detail about the origin or and only briefly discusses potential repercussions of the phobia. The relatively well developed, but does not discuss anything in major detail likely due to access to minimal references.