User:Mcwillaa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Reproductive toxicity - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have some background in the subject so I felt I would be able to evaluate it. Reproductively toxicity is an important subject that often gets overlooked in occupational safety and generally in health, until a person experiences difficulty with fertility and/or maintaining pregnancy. First impressions of the article are that it seems a solid basic outline of the subject, however, it could definitely use additional citations and perhaps additional sections on specific toxicants.

Lead Section
The first sentence of the article is a perfect summation of the topic, as it covers the key points of impacts on both genders and on parental fertility as well as fetal development. However, the rest of the introductory paragraph neglects to overview the later sections of examples. It could have included heavy metals, ionizing radiation, etc. or at minimum mentioned that there are specific exposures to watch out for that would be mentioned later in the article. It also focuses quite heavily on the definition of infertility, which while important, could perhaps be in its own section in detail rather than in the introduction. Instead of detailing infertility it would be clearer to outline the general content of the article including a basic mention of infertility and then it could follow with a detailed section.

Content
The content of the article is all relevant to the topic. It explains the categories of reproductive toxicants and follows with examples. However, there could be additional content explaining the specific outcomes for these categories. For example, it categorizes types of endocrine disruptors, but it does not explain the potential reproductive outcomes due to those specific types of disruptions. Additionally, there are several other reproductive toxicants noted by NIOSH that should be included in the article. At minimum, I would suggest the addition of antineoplastic drugs and anesthetic gases under the examples, particularly if EMFs are included. In fact, I do not think EMFs should be included, or if they are they should be placed at the bottom of the example list. This article does not make mention of any equity gaps, though I think perhaps there should be note of particular professions that are at higher risk of exposure. Doing so could then lead to highlighting underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
The article focuses more heavily than one might expect, on male fertility. While male fertility is important, several of the examples only mention male impacts and not the female impacts. Including examples which have well-studied and significant impacts on female fertility and child development, such as lead and ionizing radiation. If this article is edited, I would suggest including both male and female reproductive impacts under each example. The inclusion of EMFs despite little references may be a biased inclusion, hence my above recommendation of removal.

Sources and References
There are several instances in which the article includes a sentence that requires a reference but does not include one. Some examples of this from the article are:


 * "Lowered effective fertility related to reproductive toxicity relates to both male and female effects alike and is reflected in decreased sperm counts, semen quality and ovarian failure."
 * "The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) separates reproductive toxicity from germ cell mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, even though both these hazards may also affect fertility."
 * "Endocrine disruptors change how hormones are produced and how they interact with their receptors. Endocrine disruptors are classified as estrogenic, anti-estrogenic, androgenic or anti-androgenic. Each category includes pharmaceutical compounds and environmental compounds. Estrogenic or androgenic compounds will cause the same hormonal responses as the sex steroids (estrogen and testosterone). However anti-estrogenic and anti-andogenic compounds bind to a receptor and block the hormones from binding to their receptors, thus preventing their function."

Some of the sources are recent while many are over a decade old and may need updating. Additionally, there is overreliance on a handful of scientific articles in some sections. There should be multiple references in those instances. As a result, there is also a lack of diversity in the authors cited. There are also example sections that are supported using animal studies, which while useful, might benefit from additional human study references.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article would benefit from reorganization. One suggestion would be adding a specific section on types of fertility impacts, which could take the sections from the introduction that details infertility. Additionally, the examples section could be re-named to "Common Exposures" and then expanded to include additional toxicants. Because the exposures are primarily occupational, the article would benefit from a section on reproductive occupational exposure that could mention specific occupations and demographic information for at-risk populations.

I did notice some unclear language within the article as well as a spelling error. This suggests the article would benefit from grammatically focused editing.

Images and Media
There are images included in the article that are well-captioned and adhere to copywrite standards. However, I don't believe they enhance the understanding of the article, though they do provide visual interest and appeal which adds value.

Talk Page Discussion
There is very little discussion on the talk page, it is only an interaction between two previous student editors. One student made a good suggestion of separate sections on the male and female reproductive systems and how they are impacted differently by reproductive toxicants.

Overall Impressions
I believe that this article is a good foundation for the subject and it clear that the main editor had a specific knowledge base and interest. However, there are major areas of improvement. The lead section needs to be more introductory and general, and its more specific information moved to its own section on male and female fertility. I also think there needs to be major improvement in the scientific explanations of the examples, specifically impact on female fertility and exposure pathways. In my opinion this article is underdeveloped and would benefit from an overall grammatical/clarity edit, a partial restructuring, additional citations, expansion of the existing example sections, an additional section on fertility with a gendered analysis, and finally a section on occupational exposures which would include common occupations and pathways of exposure.

Feedback from instructors
Excellent, careful analysis. I will add some of your comments to the article talk page. Good job! TMorata (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)