User:SinghGEOG473/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Button Cell - WikiLink

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because even though it falls under the C-class articles on Wikipedia, I felt as if there is a lack of a history section. Although I saw in the talks page that there was an edit ear in relation to battery swallowing/health issues, i found it inadequate that there is no history section either. I think it would be important to give a somewhat brief history on button cells. Overall the page isn't long but it does consist of in-depth detail on the scientific properties and identifications of the various types of button cell batteries.

Lead section
The lead section is very well written. It describes the articles topic fairly simply without throwing too much jargon. The section is broken up into four paragraphs which relates to the way the rest of the article is written. The 2nd to last paragraph talks about the material make-up like the second to last section and the last paragraph goes over the brief risks/dangers which is also the last section of the article. The lead is not overly detailed nor too lackluster, the amount of information presented is just right.

Content
All the content is relevant and correctly brought up. I would argue that the sources are not up-to-date which could result in out of date information based on current day norms or standards. In reference to the talk page and the edit war, I think that the mention of health issues was important and does belong here as it pertains specifically to these types of batteries and talks about the recent changes in 2020 in an attempt to take caution against the risks of kids swallowing the batteries.

Tone and Balance
This article is neutral and holds no bias towards a company or person. It also does a great job at being informative about issues without leaning one way or the other. The health issues mentioned are just that, nothing more nothing less. There is also no persuasion going on in terms of these kinds of batteries being better or more unsafe or more wasteful or anything of the sort.

Sources and References
The first source has no link nor PDF of any sorts attached to it. The second source is a link to a companies PDF (Energizer) on their batteries technical details and it does not work. There is a link to a source which is public research by the University of Massachusetts Lowell on button batteries and that is not only very detailed but also appropriate for being reliable. The external links includes a link to the EU's 2006 directive for disposal of these types of batteries. I would say this is very outdated and should definitely be updated, especially if one is going to reference the appropriate disposal methods. There are also a couple areas that require a citation for the information presented.

Organization and writing quality
The article is well written, concise and yet, remains easy to read. Any mention of scientific terms or the materials used for the button cells are all Wiki-links in cased users don't understand the electrical engineering concepts shared or the way these compounds/chemicals work. The sections are properly titled and brought up in a certain cohesive manner. I would argue that the section titled "Rechargeable Variants" is not as necessary for the audience to know of in terms of the extra knowledge on where they are used, if anything, this could be part of another section like lead section.

Images and Media
I would say the images are used for enhancing the readers knowledge or recognition of what the article talks about. They are also very well captioned as they relate directly to the corresponding areas they are shown for and the captions help to further the context of the images as well. They all also have their respective licenses sourced.

Talk page discussion
The behind-the-scenes talks on this topic were mentioning the editing war of sharing health issues presented by these battery types. Although all batteries do have health issues when swallowed, this specific batter type is more easier to swallow for kids especially toddlers. The brief mentioning of the risks of the battery and its' properties is enough for the audience to get a somewhat understanding and of how lethal they can be for children health. I also believe it is important because the article also mentions how Duracell went ahead and coated their button cells as well to hinder kids desire to swallow the batteries. Although this article doesn't directly relate to natural energy, I would argue the manufacturing of this type of manmade energy storage/device is something I could delve into. The production and more so, the sustainability and waste when it comes to batteries is very dire as well.

Overall Impressions
Overall my impressions of this article are that it is well detailed and the inclusion of the health issues is important as it is directly related to this specific type of battery but, I do think the article should be reevaluated when it comes to sources/external links and the lack of a brief history.