User:Dudu120/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Environmental health

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.)

Environmental health is a hot topic in the world at the moment with the pandemic taking place. This topic is essential because it is necessary to know the health status of our environment and how the dynamics of public health works. My preliminary impression of it was there was a good number of citations, but the paper is lacking in content.

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.)

1) Lead section- The first sentence of the lead section describes the topic well, but not in specific and comprehendible terms. It does not incluse a brief summary of the sections in the article, but it is to the point and concise. It has the contents of the article listed, and does not include information that is not found in the article.

2) The content of the article is updated and relevant to the topic. From my review there is no missing Information and does not include topics under Wikipedia equity gap.

3) The particle is from a neutral point of view, stating information from citation, and it does not tend to persuade readers towards a certain direction. It is educating and informative.

4) There are numerous facts mentioned that needs to have citations added, so no, the article is not adequately backed up by secondary literatures. Most of the sources are thorough, but are from five to ten years ago which is not recent. The origin of the sources for this article is diverse and well versed; however, there are numerous sources that is available and can be added to the article. Links attached to the article work as well.

5) The article is clear and concise. The sutopics are put in order, and explained accordingly. There are no grammatical errors, and the article is well organized.

6) The images help in understanding the article topic, and follows the right copyright policies. The images are titled, but not laid out in a visual appealing way.

7) This article is rated low in the talk page, there are several professionals who have showed interest in rewriting the article.

8) My overall impressions are that the article is disjointed and does not have a flow.