User:Hopiec/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Itai-itai disease
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I am interested in environmental health as well as the impacts of environmental concerns on human biology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It gives a brief description for all except the "Treatment" and "Economic costs" sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It references the Four Big Pollution Diseases of Japan but those are only brought up in a small section under the external links section in a table.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is pretty concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * In paragraph 2 under Symptoms, it says " marked prevalence in older, postmenopausal women has been observed. The cause of this phenomenon is not fully understood, and is currently under investigation. Current research has pointed to general malnourishment, as well as poor calcium metabolism relating to the women's age.". This is saying that we don't have a good understanding as to why postmenopausal women get these symptoms but this may no longer be the case.
 * In the last paragraph under Legal Action it says "Fifteen people with itai-itai were still alive as of 1993.". This may no longer be the case today.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It's missing the environmental justice aspect of the issue along with explanations as to what went down when it says "Due to the cadmium poisoning, the fish in the river started to die, and the rice irrigated with river water did not grow well.". It could also use the biological reasoning as to why people's bones began to get brittle.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, this article relates to people who have been presumably underrepresented (working class Japanese citizens).

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe that the writer of this mainly focuses on the legal action and economic costs sections. The other sections are not in bad shape but are sometimes lacking in details.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * "These studies are pointing to damage of the mitochondria of kidney cells by cadmium as a key factor of the disease." Needs refrence
 * The begging half of the first paragraph under Causes could use some citations.
 * " The river was used mainly for irrigation of rice fields, but also for drinking water, washing, fishing, and other uses by downstream populations." needs a citation. The one there doesn't relate
 * "Due to the cadmium poisoning, the fish in the river started to die, and the rice irrigated with river water did not grow well." needs citation
 * "The cadmium and other heavy metals accumulated at the bottom of the river and in the water of the river." needs citation
 * "The rice absorbed heavy metals, especially the cadmium, which accumulated in the people who consumed the contaminated rice." needs citation
 * "the company built a basin to store the mining waste water before leading it into the river. This proved ineffective, and many had already been sickened." needs citation
 * "Medical tests started in the 1940s and 1950s, searching for the cause of the disease. Initially, it was expected to be lead poisoning due to the lead mining upstream. " needs citation
 * "Only in 1955 did Dr. Hagino and his colleagues suspect cadmium as the cause of the disease. "
 * the refrence says it happened in 1956
 * "Toyama Prefecture also started an investigation in 1961, determining that the Mitsui Mining and Smelting's Kamioka Mining Station caused the cadmium pollution and that the worst-affected areas were 30 km downstream of the mine. In 1968, the Ministry of Health and Welfare issued a statement about the symptoms of itai-itai disease caused by the cadmium poisoning."
 * the given source does not explain these
 * "The reduction of the levels of cadmium in the water supply reduced the number of new cases; no new case has been recorded since 1946. While the people with the worst symptoms came from Toyama prefecture, the government found patients with itai-itai disease in five other prefectures." needs citation
 * "The mines are still in operation" needs citation
 * "The term itai-itai disease (in Japanese イタイイタイ病 itai-itai byō, "it hurts-it hurts disease" or "ouch-ouch disease") was coined by the affected locals for the severe pains that people with itai-itai disease felt in the spine and joints. In Japanese 痛い itai is used as an adjective meaning "painful" or as an interjection equivalent to "ouch"" needs citation
 * "Any person with Cd-Poisoning must seek immediate medical help. Detoxification of Cadmium (Cd) with EDTA (Ethylene Diamine TetraAcetate) and other chelators is possible. Clinically available chelators include EDTA, DMPS, DMSA, and British Anti-Lewisite (BAL). BAL is more toxic than its derivatives, DMPS and DMSA, and is seldom used clinically. EDTA, DMPS, and DMSA increase urinary excretion of Cd. Studies in vitro and in vivo suggest that EDTA is superior to DMSA in mobilizing intracellular Cd. As EDTA is approved by the FDA for lead and other heavy metals, and has a long history of safe use, it is most widely accepted for clinical use. Use of such chelators as has been seen as therapeutically beneficial to humans and animals when done using established protocols." I feel like this whole thing could use more citations
 * "Twenty-nine plaintiffs, consisting of 9 people with itai-itai disease and 20 of their family members, sued the Mitsui Mining and Smelting Co. in 1968 in the Toyama Prefectural court. In June 1971, the court found the Mitsui Mining and Smelting Co. guilty. Subsequently, the company appealed to the Nagoya District Court in Kanazawa, but the appeal was rejected in August 1972. The Mitsui Mining and Smelting Co. agreed to pay for the medical care of the people who had been affected, finance the monitoring of the water quality performed by the residents, and pay reparations to the people with the disease."
 * nothing here is backed up
 * "People who believe that they have itai-itai disease have to contact the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare to have their claims assessed. Many people with itai-itai disease were not satisfied with government actions and demanded a change in the official procedures. This caused the government to review the criteria for recognizing a patient legally; the government also reassessed the treatment of the disease."
 * no citations
 * "A person is considered to have itai-itai disease if he or she lived in the contaminated areas, has kidney dysfunctions and softening of the bones, but not related heart problems. One hundred and eighty-four patients have been legally recognized since 1967, of whom 54 were recognized in the period from 1980 to 2000. An additional 388 people have been identified as potential patients, those who had not been officially examined yet. Fifteen people with itai-itai were still alive as of 1993."
 * no citations
 * Nothing in the economic costs section is backed up with a citation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Some of the sources are pretty brief and don't provide as much information as what's mentioned in the article. Only one of them is a full journal article and one of them can not be found through the provided link.
 * Are the sources current?
 * 1- 2008
 * 2- 1998
 * 3- 2013
 * 4- Not sure
 * 5- 2013
 * 6- Page not found
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Some of these are from Japanese sources, one is written by a professor of Pharmacology &Toxicology, and one a physician.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * When you click "the original" for citation 1, the link doesn't work
 * When you click "the original" for citation 3, the link doesn't work
 * When you click "Toyama concludes cadmium cleanup" for citation 6, the page can not be found

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * they are all to do with adding info/info in the article not agreeing w/ sources
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * WikiProject Medicine
 * Start-Class and Mid-Importance
 * WikiProject Japan
 * C-Class
 * Low-importance
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Less emphasis on environmental justice

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * it needs work done for sure
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * it has enough detail to show the full picture.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * providing more specific info, enhancing what it already has and using more citations.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * underdeveloped

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: