User:ProdigyPanda/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Aquatic toxicology

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 the article Aquatic Toxicology due to its title containing "toxicology". Unlike specific xenobiotics, an aquatic environment is broad and relevant globally. The article requires additional citations. I am not proficient in writing but I am capable in providing reliable sources to support the content in the article. Aquatic Toxicology has a lot of impact on me due to growing up on the Eastern Shore there's a lot of seafood such as crabs, clams, and oysters. There's environmental and human health impact in which we can prohibit.

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.)

Lead Section"The lead has a very good introduction with it explaining what Aquatic toxicology is. It then goes into what it's looking at which is to measure the ecological sensitivity due to a toxicant. They are getting organisms through a lab or from the environment itself."Content History, Aquatic tests, exposure systems, types of tests, effects, terminology, and why it's important to know these things (significance in regulatory context). Although the content might be a couple of years old, this is just due to no new definition of aquatic toxicology has been release, and/or no new information has been released about aquatic toxicology.

Content that is missing are examples of how toxicology impacted an aquatic ecosystem. Im sure I could find one. Article doe not deal with equity gap it just talks about aquatic toxicology no examples were given. Tone and Balance The article is very neutral, You can't see any passion through the article, it is what it is. Since there were no examples my fault on the bad article chosen, the article did no contain examples of how toxicants can affect a certain population in which it could not prioritize a certain group since no groups were spoken about.

Article does a good job at just saying what it is. Sources and References"The sources on the article are correct, I added a wrong source and published it... It went through which was weird I imagined they double checked it but i guess nobody did. Most of their sources are correct, most of their sources came from government papers. All their links work. There might be some grammar mistakes or ways to make it sound more robotic but I only picked up on one thing, which is a lot."Organization and writing quality "Article is very straight to the point. Grammatical errors may occur but it is not anything big. It is broken down into a lot of sections which makes it very easy to read and understand."Images and Media"Hard to insert images on an article that just talks about information. They could add more images and examples of how this is useful or ways that the techniques are used and for why."Talk page discussion "pretty dead"Overal impressions "Article was pretty nice. I could have chosen a much better article in which I had to actually go in and fix. I need a real world example somewhere in the article or a link to an article that has one so it supports that aquatic toxicology is important not just another definition."