User:ProdigyPanda/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose the article Aquatic Toxicology due to its title containing "toxicology". Unlike specific xenobiotics, an aquatic environment is broad and relevant globally. The article requires additional citations. I am not proficient in writing but I am capable in providing reliable sources to support the content in the article. Aquatic Toxicology has a lot of impact on me due to growing up on the Eastern Shore there's a lot of seafood such as crabs, clams, and oysters. There's environmental and human health impact in which we can prohibit.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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 lead has a very good introduction with it explaining what Aquatic toxicology is. It then goes into what it's looking at which is to measure the ecological sensitivity due to a toxicant. They are getting organisms through a lab or from the environment itself.
Content
History, Aquatic tests, exposure systems, types of tests, effects, terminology, and why it's important to know these things (significance in regulatory context). Although the content might be a couple of years old, this is just due to no new definition of aquatic toxicology has been release, and/or no new information has been released about aquatic toxicology. Content that is missing are examples of how toxicology impacted an aquatic ecosystem. Im sure I could find one. Article doe not deal with equity gap it just talks about aquatic toxicology no examples were given.
Tone and Balance
The article is very neutral, You can't see any passion through the article, it is what it is. Since there were no examples my fault on the bad article chosen, the article did no contain examples of how toxicants can affect a certain population in which it could not prioritize a certain group since no groups were spoken about. Article does a good job at just saying what it is.
Sources and References
The sources on the article are correct, I added a wrong source and published it... It went through which was weird I imagined they double checked it but i guess nobody did. Most of their sources are correct, most of their sources came from government papers. All their links work. There might be some grammar mistakes or ways to make it sound more robotic but I only picked up on one thing, which is a lot.
Organization and writing quality
Article is very straight to the point. Grammatical errors may occur but it is not anything big. It is broken down into a lot of sections which makes it very easy to read and understand.
Images and Media
Hard to insert images on an article that just talks about information. They could add more images and examples of how this is useful or ways that the techniques are used and for why.
Talk page discussion
pretty dead
Overal impressions
Article was pretty nice. I could have chosen a much better article in which I had to actually go in and fix. I need a real world example somewhere in the article or a link to an article that has one so it supports that aquatic toxicology is important not just another definition.