User:Kmd1040/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Xylitol

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was interested in finding an article about a xenobiotic that I didn't know much about and that discussed the effects in both humans and other animals. This article is on xylitol and discusses the adverse effects in humans, dogs, and other animals.

Evaluate the article

 * The lead is concise and to the point. However, it may be a little too concise. It does give the reader an idea of what the article will be about, as it mentions what the uses of xylitol are and broaches the subject of its efficacy in such. I think the author should've provided a little more information in the lead that would relate to the other topics discussed in the article, such as the adverse effects.
 * Overall I think the article's content is well-balanced and discusses a good amount of topics on the chemical in a short and consise way. Though, again I do think a little more detail and information could be useful. Additionally, after going through the references, it looks like a good amount of the sources are a bit out of date. The most recent source was from 2018, and many were from 2006-2016.
 * The article seems neutral and balanced.
 * I think that the organization of the article is good. I like that it introduces the chemical structure of the xenobiotic first, and then its uses, followed by the food properties, health implications, and adverse effects. I think this structuring of the article makes the most sense and is easy for the reader to follow along with.
 * Only a few images of the chemical structure were used. I think for the purpose of this article that is sufficient.
 * The is a lot of content on the talk page. Most of it had to do with a lack of neutral tone and balance and providing more information that was missing in the article. This is certainly concerning, however, it seems as though the current version of the article published has been edited accordingly and no longer has these issues.
 * Overall, I think that the current version of the article is decent. It is pretty neutral and discusses a good amount of relevant topics. However, I do think that some more information could be added as each section, including even the lead, is maybe a little too concise. Additionally, some more recent information/sources would also be really helpful!