User:Gabriellagp/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating an article regarding Environmental health.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because the field of Environmental studies is quite extensive and I had been interested in Environmental health specifically, but I didn't have too much knowledge on this topic. Upon further reading, I found that Environmental health matters for the safety of the human population It concerns issues with humans and their health - specifically those in which the natural or built environments played a significant role. My preliminary impression of this article was that the reader would learn about environmental health in its entirety. Maybe examples of what it is. At first glance, you would think Environmental health is about the health of the environment - in which this is partly true. It focuses more-so on how different factors in the environment can affect human health.

Evaluate the article
I think that the lead section was excellent. It included a very detailed yet brief introduction into the topic as well as a little overview of what the rest of the article would be talking about. I would say that the actual content itself was very well related to the content and fairly recent. I believe the most recent was retrieved in 2021. The article however, does not discuss WikiEdu's equity gaps. Under the "Concerns" tab in the article, I found that it alludes to and mentions major environmental health issues, but never really addresses why certain places may be experiencing it more than others (especially because of race). The tone and balance of this article is very neutral. It is a standard informational article and doesn't have much room to input different perspectives. In regards to the sources, they range from about 1991 to 2021, I think it is a very good range. Some might be a little bit older than what is normally accepted, but they are reliable sources and backup the facts stated throughout the article. The links clicked on seem to be working fine. Additionally, I did not catch any grammatical errors, the writing was very well written and straight to the point. Very easy to digest for different levels of readers. The separation of the sections also helped with the flow and better understanding on the topic. Regarding pictures and captions, all captions were used correctly and the included pictures helped further the readers understanding. The talk page discussion has a few posts from 2007-2009 about how the article was terrible for the topic. The last time the article was edited was in January of 2022. So I believe that at the time, the article may not have been the best, but with the help of editors, it is where it needs to be to date. Overall, I think that this article was pretty successful in explaining the basics of what environmental health is. I especially liked the section where the author brings up environmental health professions. I think that the article could be improved by possibly adding a section about how environmental health and environmental justice are correlated.