User:Sl6268/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pesticide incidents in the San Joaquin Valley

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.)

Pesticide incidents have been prevalent since the late 20th century. There needs to be better awareness regarding the negative impacts that the pesticides have on the environment in the Central Valley.

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 article introduces with the first pesticide incidents that were recorded. The article does a good job with explaining the timeline of this issue. Overall, the lead is well written, and no major revisions are needed.

Content

The information is relevant to the topic, and the contents are up to date, as there were multiple revisions in 2022. However, there simply is not enough content. The article talks about background, and then goes straight into the effects and the responses. There needs to be more detailed information about the specific pesticide incidents in the Central Valley.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral, but there is too much coverage about the "numbers" and not enough coverage about the effects on the farmers. With this said, the article does not try to sway the readers to a certain viewpoint.

Sources and References

The sources include primary and secondary sources, but a lot of the sources are slightly outdated. There is not enough information in the recent ten years. The references show that these sources are from reputable magazines and newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and UFW. I would need to ensure that there are sources from more present days.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well written as it was reviewed by many people, and there are no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is relatiely well oragnized.

Images and Media

There is one image in the entire article, and it is well-captioned and it adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. There is not enough images to determine whether the images are visually appealing.

Talk page Discussion

There is only one discussion for this article, stating that there should be more images. Unfortunately, there is just not enough discussion going on to evaluate this aspect of the article.

Overall Impressions

There certainly is a good foundation to this article. There probably is not a lot of revisions needed for the background information, and some of the well-known incidents such as the McFarland Cancer Clusters have its own section in the article. As important as this event is, I would add some images regarding some of these important events. The sections that are present are relatively well-developed, but I would create more subsections and images to imporve the overall breadth of the article.