User:Clark3ei/Choose an Article

Article Selection
''Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.''

Option 1

 * Farmer's lung

Article Evaluation
The content appears to be relevant and up-to-date as items such as causes and pathophysiology of disease are generally thought to be "timeless". Also, based upon a brief literature review, the diagnosis and treatment sections also appear to be correct and relevant. The article is written neutrally. It is presented in a manner that is not overly biased and does not try to persuade the reader to adopt a particular viewpoint. Almost every sentence in the article is supported by a source. There are a few sentences in the "Causes" subsection and the "Treatment" subsection that make claims without a citation. Upon a brief review of the references, it is obvious that these sources are quite outdated with some sources dating as far back as the 1970s and 1980s and only one reference being from the last five years. Most of the sources, if they were updated, seem to be appropriate secondary sources that originate from review articles, professional subject matter books, or guidelines from experts. The last reference, which is designated by footnote 12, would not be a reliable source as it is a pilot study and would likely be categorized as a primary source. The listed references do appear to provide a broad coverage of the topic. However, for this article to be improved, a literature search should be done to review the most current body of knowledge on the understanding of the disease and well the most up-to-date diagnosis and treatment approach. This article does not cover equity gaps or underrepresented people groups or topics. The talk page is short but there are several suggestions of secondary sources that could be added to improve the study that looks at the pathophysiology of the disease.

Option 2

 * Glassblower's cataract

Article Evaluation
The content is relevant but the article is not very easy to read. The lead section is not clear and has a lot of redundancy and the mechanism section has a lot of uncited technical language. Upon a brief literature review, the etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment information appears to be up-to-date. The article is written neutrally however the writing style feels too familiar and could be written more technically. It is not written in a biased fashion and does not attempt to persuade the reader to take on a particular viewpoint. This article is sparsely cited. Specifically, there is not a citation after each claim. Instead, this is one citation at the end of each subsection. This article could be improved by adding more high-quality citations. Upon review of the article's references, the majority appear to be significantly outdated with the oldest reference being from 1921. Most of the references appear to be from appropriate secondary sources except for the source designed by footnote 5 which appears to be an op-ed article. It also appears that there needs to be more sources collected to add to the coverage of this topic. Specifically, gaining additional sources that elaborate on the epidemiological status of this condition such as incidence and prevalence rates, morbidity statistics, etc. To broaden the scope of available sources, it may be worth expanding this page to encompass all occupationally-induced cataracts and not just from glassblowing or metalworking. This article does not specifically address equity gaps or underrepresented people groups. However, it could potentially represent a vulnerable group of workers who were either not properly educated on the occupational risks of developing cataracts or were not given the appropriate safety glasses to protect themselves against the exposure. The talk page explains that the page was created from a course assignment by Wiki Edu. There are no formal comments or dialogue on this page.

Option 3
Occupational dust exposure

Article Evaluation
The content of this article is relevant to the topic and concise. This article is neutrally written and does not persuade the reader of any one viewpoint; however, does not always have a citation for each claim made. For example, in the subsection discussing construction-based occupational dust, out of five sentences with claims made, only one sentence was cited. Many of the citations are from appropriate secondary sources, primarily CDC, NIOSH, and OSHA. However, the age of some of the sources may be out of date, with some dating from OSHA’s comments in 1988 for the 1989 Final Rule on Air Contaminants Project. Upon a brief literature review of OSHA’s website, it was found to contain newer documentation that can be used as a citation on exposure limits and definitions. The reference designated by footnote 12 is from a food manufacturing and distribution industry blog, which is not considered an appropriate source. The article does have a brief epidemiology section but does not discuss any incidence, distribution, and determinants of disease, and therefore, does not address any equity gaps. On the article’s talk page, there is minimal discussion by those contributing. This article appears to have been initially developed by students using Wiki edu for an industrial hygiene course.

Option 4
Latex allergy

Article Evaluation
The article appears to have had a good start containing relevant content, discussing elements of causes, pathophysiology, incidence, distribution, and prevention. The article is written neutrally and is not biased towards one viewpoint. Claims made throughout the article are well-substantiated by citations; however, some citations are outdated, with several articles being from the 1990s. Many of these citations relate to occupational exposure to latex, especially in the healthcare setting. Not mentioned in the article are the large efforts of healthcare systems shifting away from latex to other synthetics, such as nitrile for gloves. Therefore, the discussion on this type of occupational exposure should be referenced more historically than as current practice. This article does discuss equity gaps as there is a subsection that specifically discusses occupational exposure and explains that healthcare workers and housekeeping staff are disproportionately affected by latex allergies.

On the talk page, there is a lot of discussion that specifically addresses incorrect or unsubstantiated citations and false claims. As latex allergy is a frequently discussed topic in the public, including among laypeople, a significant amount of debate was generated on what tangential topics should be mentioned, such as latex in clothing, latex-containing contraceptive devices, and artificial latex. Additionally, there was also a long discussion on the talk page about the difference between Types I, II, III, and IV hypersensitivities, which are related to latex. However, comments have become quiet after 2016.

Feedback from instructors
All excellent choices. You probably do not need to work on all of them. Whenever data on rates (prevalence, incidence) are missing and you can find it, please try to add it. TMorata (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)