User:Mintgreen01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Toxic abortion

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article as it is related to environmental studies. This is an important article to further examine how dangerous pollution is and the impacts it can have on pregnant women.

My main impression on the article was that it was informative, as I've never hear of this phenomenon before, but also succinct and easy to read.

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 presented was clear and concise, however it did not state the main sections explored in the article. The article's contents are relevant, as seen through the use of studies and journals, and it is relatively up to date but could use a more recent version, especially to see whether new studies have been conducted on the matter. While the article addresses how toxic abortion affects humans, it does not go into as much detail in the animal section.

When it comes to the tone and balance of the article, I would say it is neutral and unbiased, however, as stated previously, one of the sections is way less detailed and much smaller than the other. In fact, I would say that the viewpoint of animals in the article is underrepresented.

As per citations and sources, the articles uses numerous medical journals and overall, these appear to not be too old, but some need to be updated. The sources and authors are relatively diverse, for example by using literature from a University in Romania. There could be better sources, such as medical or peer reviewed journals, that could be used instead of articles from Newsweek or The Washington Post. In addition, some of the information provided needs to be further proved by a medical or peer reviewed journal instead of coming from a newspaper article. Finally, all the links worked and I was able to see where the material discussed came from.

Overall, the article is decently written and easy to read given how brief it is, with no grammatical errors present. The writing itself is concise and to the point, making the information described easily understandable. In addition, the article is divided into two main categories relating to the topic of toxic abortions in animals and in humans. While these are important subtopics, I feel that there was no real mention on how the process of toxic abortion actually occurs. For example, there was no mention of the way in which toxic substances in the environment get absorbed by the body, eventually leading to abortion.

There are no images presented in this article, though it is suggested in the talk page to add one. There are not many comments left on this article. Out of the ones that are there, the majority are advice on using a certain template or tool. There is only one comment about altering the search parameters to find medical sources specific to this topic. The article is part of the WikiProject Abortion, the WikiProject Women's Health and the WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine. In these, the article is rated to be "Start-class."

To conclude, the article is well done in terms of the writing being clear and concise and it being easy to read and understand. However, I do believe there is more information on the topic that could have been included, such as the process in which toxins get absorbed by the body to then cause abortions in both humans and animals. This would also give the article more subtopics, instead of just having two of them. Therefore, I would say that the article leans toward being underdeveloped as it does not go into much detail on the topic and is very general.