User:Welovebees/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Environmental health

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 this article because it related to a topic I am very interested in and passionate about. This topic is important because every aspect of environmental factors can affect human health. Environmental research can save lives and environmental assessments are critical in this process. Understanding of environmental assessments will provide clear answers to questions about human health and enable guidelines to be put in place to protect lives. My preliminary impression of this article was surprise at how much information was provided in a short project. The organization of the layout was also impressive because it provides concise topics and details within that further contribute to a reader's understanding and application.

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.)

This article has a relatively weak Lead. It contains an overview of the topic but lacks a description of the articles main topics. It is concise and easy to understand but needs more information about what this specific article will be discussing. The article's content is mostly relevant to it's topic and most of the information is up to date. There are a couple sources that are over ten years old but they are used to showcase the evolution of environmental health in human society. This article does remain neutral throughout the discussion of its topics and is not trying persuade the reader to way one side or another, it is instead attempting to inform the reader about different positions and considerations of environmental health. Not all of the facts provided are supported by secondary sources of information. In the Definitions portion of this article, there are statements that are not supported or proved to be true by a source. Most of the sources provided are relatively thorough, current and written by an array of authors. Most of the links work but there are a couple sources provided that are absent of links or an ISBN number. The article content is well organized and written. There are minimal to no grammatical or spelling errors. The images provided also follow Wikipedia's copyright policies and are used to enhance the reader's understanding. When looking at the Talk page, I found many previous issues related to this article such as disorganization, irrelevant information, and a less than comprehensive evaluation of the topic. Many editors discussed adjustments that would need to be made to the article and how to "clean it up." This article could be improved by having environmental health professionals analyze what aspects are missing and what aspects need to adjusted to be more accurate or moved to a different place in the article to enhance understanding. There needs to be more sources included and a better Lead could be written to give an overview of the article's topics. Overall this article is fairly well-organized and has current sources but could use more to provide better accreditation. ~