User:HL02378/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Fluoride toxicity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to the class I am currently taking, Toxicology. It matters because fluoride toxicity is related to toxicology and can cause harm to humans and possibly the environment. My impression of this article was that it discusses what fluoride toxicity is, its characteristics, the occurrence of it in organofluoride compounds, its mechanism, and the effects it can have on humans and aquatic organisms in a straight to the point manner with references attached.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic. I would say the lead has a brief description of the article's main sections for the most part. I do not see any information in the lead not present in the article. It is concise.

Content:

Content is relevant to topic. It is mostly up to date, besides a few articles being before the 2000s. There might be potential content missing, but I think everything belongs here. I am not sure if it specifically deals with equity gaps in Wikipedia and I think it addresses topics that are underrepresented, as I have not personally seen fluoride toxicity myself.

Tone and Balance:

It seems like the article is fairly neutral in my opinion. I do not think there is any heavy bias in this article. I see a few parts that are underrepresented like organofluorine compounds. I guess minority viewpoints are described as such. I do not see the article trying to persuade anything to the reader, just giving information about the topic.

Sources and References:

They are backed up by secondary source of information provided by the articles. They appear to be thorough but most are no incredibly up to date, as most are more than 5 years old at this point. They are written by different authors and include historically marginalized people when possible. The links do work and I am sure better references are available.

Organization/Writing Quality:

The article is concise, easy to read, and clear to me. I did not come across any grammar errors. It is well organized.

Images/Media:

There is one picture that does help understand the topic and has a neat caption to go along with it. I think it adheres to Wiki's copyright regulations. It is visually appealing.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is fact checking going on with the article and a tiny bit of incorrect information, along with something called a "ge" in the units of a value. Also, the fact checking of brain damage from the fluoride toxicity has a citation some people are not too sure about adding to the article. It is rated C-Class and is of mid importance. The article is apart of the Toxicology task force wiki project, Project Medicine. The way Wikipedia talks about the topic is that they want to make sure the facts are correct and that the citations are reliable and good to use. The article goes into more depth compared to what we talked about in class about fluorine toxicity. We did not spend much time talking about fluorine's effects on us and the environment.

Overall impressions:

I think the overall status of the article is not bad, but could use some corrections in the information, making sure it is accurate and not false, along with very good citations. The article's strengths to me are its conciseness and its lead. I think the article can be improved with a little more information on some of the subtopics and double-checking a few of the sources to make sure the facts provided are accurate. I believe the article is a tad-bit underdeveloped and could use some more editing to make it better.