User:TravisJJacobs/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]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_hazard
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.)
This article is lacking information on specific physical hazards, like ergonomics, etc.
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.)
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.