User:Theheathbar01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Toxicology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it directly relates to the course I am taking, Toxicology. It is noted at the top of the article that it has multiple issues and can be improved. This article matters because it contributes to the public understanding of what toxicologists do and how they advance many fields of science. My first impression is that it is well put together, although lacking in some areas, such as the profession section. It does not provide many citations or links to other wikipedia articles that could help someone understand the specifics of the work.

Evaluate the article
Lead:


 * The introductory sentence describes the article's topic clearly.
 * It does not have a description of all major sections in the article: it does not mention different testing methods, or that there are many fields a toxicologist can work in.
 * It includes some information not present in the article: how toxicology is contributing to cancer research, which is not further elaborated in the article.
 * It is mostly concise, but a little too detailed towards the end, regarding cancer research and ribosome-inactivating proteins.

Content:


 * The article's content is all relevant to the topic, there is nothing discussed within the article that does not relate to toxicology.
 * The content is mostly up-to-date, but several of the sources are 10 years old or more.
 * Content that is missing includes the contribution to cancer research, a separate section on evidence-based toxicology (it is included under basic principles instead), and definitions of the different types of toxins (poisons, contaminants, etc). It is also missing landmark events/disasters that could contribute to one's understanding of the importance of toxicology as a science. It only links to ecotoxicology in the "See Also" section - it may be beneficial to link to the subject earlier in the article.
 * It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics, to my understanding.

Tone and Balance:


 * The article is written from a neutral point of view.
 * There are no claims that appear biased towards any particular position, the article simply describes toxicology and some of the basic knowledge surrounding it.
 * There are no minority/fringe viewpoints, or those that are over- or underrepresented. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader towards a particular position.

Sources and References:


 * Aside from the profession section, all other sections with facts have a reliable secondary source of information, although they may be somewhat outdated at this point.
 * The sources are thorough.
 * The sources appear to be mostly current, although as mentioned some may be outdated based on current understanding and new advancements in technology.
 * All sources appear to come from many different knowledgeable authors, as well as historically marginalized persons (many authors from other countries, women, etc.)
 * There do not appear to be any sources from news coverage or random websites, all links appear to be from experts on the subject, including scientists and government websites relating to science/toxicology specifically.
 * Links tested and work. Some are web-archived but still accessible via the WayBack machine.

Organization and writing quality:


 * The article is well-written and easy to read, with no spelling or grammatical errors that I could find.
 * It is mostly well organized, but does not have a separate section describing evidence-based toxicology. That is instead included within the "basic principles" section.

Images and Media:


 * There are only two images contained in the article, one of a toxicologist working in a lab, and one of Mathieu Orfila, the "modern father of toxicology".
 * The picture of Mathieu Orfila is well captioned, but the caption on the picture of the toxicologist is somewhat lacking. It is not clear what they are doing; this could be because the person who added the picture did not know, or because it may be considered unnecessary.
 * Both images follow the copyright regulations. Clicking on either leads to a file page listing the author/owner of the picture, the description and date, as well as the source from which each image originated.
 * The picture of Orfila is visually appealing, but the picture of the toxicologist might be moved to be more appealing.

Talk page discussion:


 * Many of the conversations occurring on the talk page are directly related to the improvement of the article, such as correcting false or inaccurate information, adding sources, creating new sections, or linking to other related articles.
 * The article is a part of several WikiProjects: Medicine/Toxicology, Chemicals, Biology, and Environment. It is listed as a level-4 vital article in Biology, and rated as Start-Class by the WikiProject Vital Articles.
 * The article is much less in depth than how it has been discussed in class. As I discussed under content, it could link to ecotoxicology, and provide a better overview of the different professions available to a toxicologist, as well as link to related articles under profession. It lacks definitions of some important words, only mentioning and defining words under the "Dose response complexities" section.

Overall impressions:


 * The status of the article is C-class.
 * The main strength is that it is a good introductory article to those who may want to learn more about toxicology. It includes links to other disciplines, as well as providing a brief history of important people for the field. It also lists several types of toxicology in a separate section.
 * It can be improved by adding more sections; it would benefit from a "historical events/disasters" type of section, as well as a "current developments" section that explains any recent developments through technology or otherwise that have helped toxicology, or that explains how toxicology has recently helped solve important problems.
 * I would assess the article's completeness as underdeveloped. It is not poorly developed, but could definitely benefit from more attention and in-depth edits to elaborate on certain ideas, or create new sections.