User:Grognak3/Evaluate an Article

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

Stachybotrys chartarum

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.)

It seemed like an intersting article. It has real life implications, anyone could be living in a house with this mold that could cause health issues. My preliminary impression is it has an adequate amount of information, but could be improved upon.

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.)

The lead section is concise, but it is missing information that is included in the article, toxicity. Other than that, it has very relevant information. The content is relevant to the topic, but not all up to date. the toxicity section includes information only from the 1900's. There is a neutral tone throughout the article. The article gives very mixed information on the health effects of the plant, which is fine, but it does it in a discombobulating way. As stated earlier, there are many better and more relevent sources it could have used/ directly referenced in the writing. There is one image that appears to be taken from under a microscope. It would be better if there was an image that captured what it looked like from the naked eye so someone could learn how to identify it. There is a converstaion on the talk page of the legitimacy of a source from the CDC interestingly enough. The article is a part of the wikiprojects Fungi, and Medicine, rated mid and low importance respectively. Overall I think this article could be improved upon in a way that would create a lasting positive effect with little controversy.