User:Madunn99/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sex effects of water pollution- Sex effects of water pollution

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to the epigenetic topic that has been discussed in the last several lectures and because it presented a topic I thought was interesting. The overall quality of the article is great as it is broken down into condensed sections that each provide quality information. The amount of references looked good and several were from quality sources, but upon further inspection several appeared to be from news sources that often present information with a bias. It must also be said that the article itself presented me with ways that the article still needed to be improved and how I could do so.

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 good as it immediately details and defines the subject at hand while bringing up some of the topics that will be discussed, but not all of them. I do feel that the wording on some statements, such as the part talking about the simplicity of a water fountain, is weirdly placed and could be simplified to something like "water sources ranging from a water fountain to the ocean itself". I feel like little simplification like this could be utilized in several places across the article.

The content itself was informatory and relevant to the topic at hand, but some small improvements could be made. The use of a more recent source could be useful, as the most recent one appears to be from 2017. It could also be beneficial to address how this topic has affected certain areas or populations. A bias is not present and the information appears to be presented in a neutral manner.

The sources are where some more issues occurs. More sources could be a great addition to further cement the integrity and information of the article. At the same time, more modern sources should be utilized as well. Some of the sources also come from news reports that could possess a bias. More recent sources that come from first party sources and that possess a medical perspective would be great.

The layout of the page could be improved as well. While the general writing quality is good, some sentence have excess jargon that makes them drag on, such as the water fountain example at the start. The way the page is segmented is good, but the first sentence of several paragraphs and sections, like "there are also humans", makes the page read like one long segmented paper that breaks the pacing and quality. While there are no images present, this topic could utilize a good graph or figure from a source to illustrated some of its information.

The talk page has discussed the sources as the major problem with the article, and I would have to agree. I also think some sentences and wording could be cleaned up to make the article flow better. It is overall a good article with some parts needing improvement.