User:TravisJJacobs/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_hazard

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.)

This article is lacking information on specific physical hazards, like ergonomics, etc.

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 is concise, but it mentions things that aren’t talked about in the rest of the article. It says, “In the EU a similar role is taken by EU-OSHA,” but then it does not mention the EU-OSHA later. Also, the article does not give a brief description of the occupational hazards, it only names them.

As far as content goes, the vast majority of the article is relevant to occupational hazards; however, the article mentions NIOSH, which is not relevant to occupational hazards. NIOSH is a research center that puts forth guidelines, which makes them about researching occupational hazards and not about occupational hazards themselves. I am going to replace talking about NIOSH and give more detail about occupational hazards.

What is really good about the article is that it is completely neutral; it does not push any particular viewpoint or idea. The article also has a lot of references, with almost all of them coming from the CDC; so, relevant and reliable sources are used; however, there’s not a lot of diversity with the sources.

The article has several grammatical errors that I will be fixing. The writing is good, it just needs to be more professional/grammatically correct.

The article only has one photograph dealing with fall protection, which does enhance the article, but several more photos are needed to show occupational hazards. For instance, I am going to upload photos showing what an ergonomic hazard looks like, what thermal stress looks like, etc.

The Talk page doesn’t have anything since 2015, and that was about merging it with chemical hazards; and I’m assuming the merge occurred.

Overall, it gives a good overview of occupational hazards and discusses very important parts of occupational hazards. With that, there are a lot of words and very few pictures. So, it doesn’t capture the attention. Safety, particularly occupational hazards, tends to be a pretty dry subject, so extra effort has to be given if this article is going to facilitate active learning.