User:Clark3ei/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Occupational epidemiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I started my search broadly by inputting the subject of our class; Occupational Epidemiology. I became interested in reviewing this page because I want to understand what information is present on this topic on Wikipedia. I think it is important to become familiar with not only this article but the references that are used and associated articles and information that may be linked throughout the article. I believe this gives me an introductory working knowledge of how to navigate this subject matter for the course.

My first impression of the article is that it is shorter in length than I would expect. For such an important and complex topic, I would have liked to see more content however I do understand that it is classified as a subtopic under the heading of "Occupational Hazards". I also think that the "Application" section is worth expanding. Specifically when they reference occupational exposure limits, it may have been nice to include the different organizations that create these limits such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Article Evaluation

Lead Section


 * The lead sentence is clear and concise and describes the topic of the article. The reader would be able to understand the aim of the article by reading only the first sentence.
 * The lead does summarize the topic of Occupational Epidemiology including its major aims but does not include a summary of the article's main sections.
 * Yes, the lead section does include information that is not present in the article. Specifically, the lead section briefly references workers' compensation as well as environmental epidemiology. The terms are then not mentioned again in the body of the article.
 * The lead section is concise and does not feel overly cluttered or complicated.

Content

Tone and Balance
 * The content is relevant to the article's topic. Occupational Epidemiology encompasses numerous subdisciplines and this article does reference many of those including workers' compensation, environmental epidemiology, risk assessment, occupational health and safety, and policy development.
 * The content is up to date as the article is written in general terms and addresses topics that are very much "time-resistant" such as the promotion of healthy workers and a safe work environment and different types of epidemiological studies and their applications.
 * Content is missing from this article. Specifically, workers' compensation, environmental epidemiology, and risk assessment are all terms mentioned in the lead section that did not have a dedicated subheading in the article or were not elaborated upon further in any other section of the article. All of the current content in the article aligns with the discipline of Occupational Epidemiology and there does not appear to be content present that does not belong.
 * The article would likely qualify as dealing with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It includes the effect of workplace hazards and exposures on historically, underrepresented, vulnerable worker populations such as chimney sweeps and miners and their associated occupationally-induced illnesses at the turn of the 19th century.


 * The article is written in a neutrally.
 * There are no claims that appear to be significantly biased to support one given viewpoint.
 * There are no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints in the article.
 * Minority and fringe groups are briefly described in the article in the form of chimney sweeps, miners, and factory workers. However, the article does not present their viewpoint.
 * The article does not persuade the reader to view the subject from one particular viewpoint or away from another viewpoint.

Sources and References

Organization and Writing Quality
 * All facts in this article are supported by reliable sources of information. Upon review of the six references listed for this article, all appear to be high-quality, evidence-based resources.
 * While the references are from appropriate quality sources such as journal articles, government agencies, and books on the subject, the information gathered does not appear to be thorough. For example, including a reference from the NIOSH website would strengthen the knowledge around risk assessments. Also, including a reference from OSHA to further explain worker's compensation would strengthen the breadth of knowledge of this article.
 * Out of the six sources, three of them are significantly dated. The source designated by the footnote 4 comes from an article written in 1994. Also, the source designated by the footnote 5 comes from a book published in 1989. Finally, the book designated by footnote 2 was written in 2004. The journal article designated by footnote 4 written in 1994 should have been replaced as there is further evidence-based information that has replaced it in chronology.
 * Upon more thorough review, the references are not written by a diverse set of authors. In fact, references designated by footnotes 2 and 5 are written by a similar group of authors. Also, upon further review, it does not appear that the sources were written by historically marginalized groups.
 * Examples of more up-to-date evidence-based resources that would strengthen this article include:
 * Donisi, L., Cesarelli, G., Coccia, A., Panigazzi, M., Capodaglio, E. M., & D’Addio, G. (2021). Work-related risk assessment according to the revised NIOSH LIFTING EQUATION: A preliminary study using a wearable inertial sensor and machine learning. Sensors, 21(8), 2593. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082593 This article highlights a NIOSH strategy to reduce risk in ergonomically hazardous situations using the NIOSH lift equation.
 * U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). Workers’ Compensation. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workcomp This article explores the specific parameters of the United States worker's compensation program. This could be used to create a subheading and further detail the intersection of occupational epidemiology and the injured worker.
 * All hyperlinked terms in the body of the article work and direct the reader to other Wikipedia pages. All of the cited reference links work except for one. The reference designated by the footnote 6, does not work. When that link is clicked, the reader is informed that the page is no longer accessible.

Images and Media
 * The article is easy to read, concise and professionally conveys its message.
 * There are both spelling and grammatical errors. For example, in the third line under the "History' subheading, though is incorrectly written when it should read "It was initially thought". There are also various grammatical errors such as the omission of commas or the failure to hyphenate appropriately.
 * The article is not well-organized. The lead section serves as a comprehensive preview of what is planned for the article ahead. However, not all of these topics are addressed, and some are never mentioned again. For example, workers' compensation and environmental epidemiology are mentioned in the lead section but are not mentioned in the body of the article. Also, the various types of epidemiologic studies are not mentioned in the lead captions and are freshly presented in the body under a subheading.

Talk Page Discussion
 * The article only contains one hyperlinked table within the body which features a "clipart" type image. The article does not contain any other images.
 * The table is filled in but there are no true captions present to represent the table.
 * The table used appears to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as it seems to have been created by a Wiki editor. Based on the formatting, the Wiki editor likely inputted the subcategories and hyperlinked each one.
 * The table is concise, easy to read, and formatted in a visually appealing manner. It is also very informative as it lists the different subcategories under the greater category of Occupational Hazards. These subcategories are hyperlinked to further contribute to the reader's ease in learning about these different topics.

Overall Impressions
 * There is one comment posted on the article's Talk page. This comment mentions the French physician, Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis who historically emphasized that it was important to obtain a good occupational history when caring for patients as well as when tracking disease. It is suggested that Louis be included in the article as a notable figure in the field of Occupational Epidemiology.
 * The article has a Start-class rating and is a part of the Occupational Safety and Health WikiProject.


 * The article presents appropriate foundational information on the topic but needs additional information and reorganization of its information to be more accessible to the reader.
 * The article has strengths. Specifically, it has a good lead section that concisely describes the most pertinent aspects of the topic. It also has a history section that gives brief and relevant background of the subject, in addition to an easy-to-read section that outlines different epidemiology study designs for the reader.
 * The article can be improved by creating subheadings in the body to address the categories mentioned in the lead section such as workers' compensation, environmental epidemiology, and risk assessment. Also, it would be appropriate to expand the Application section to include a better review of the scope of occupational exposure limits and the main societies that produce them; NIOSH, OSHA, and ACGIH. This article would also be improved by expanding the breadth of resources to include a more comprehensive collection of the current literature. This may be achieved by including more up-to-date journal articles in Occupational Health or Epidemiology as well as current recommendations from bodies such as NIOSH and OSHA. In general, it is critical to replace the current resources to reflect the most high-quality, evidence-based and up-to-date sources available.
 * The article is not complete and would likely be best characterized as underdeveloped as it does have an appropriate introduction/foundational knowledge in the lead section, it fails to elaborate more deeply on the subject in the body of the article.

Feedback from instructors
Excellent analysis! I will add some of your comments in the article talk page as suggestions for improvement. TMorata (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)