User:Hart2me/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]
I chose to evaluate this article so I could learn a little more about asbestos exposure and its impact on human health. Since all use is not banned in the United States, I think it is important to understand where asbestos is still used and the potential dangers that could follow. My first impression of this article is that it appeared to be a pretty thorough summary of asbestos and its health impacts.
Evaluate the article[edit]
Lead section: I think this article has a very good first sentence that sufficiently introduces the reader to the topic. The lead does not summarize the sections included in the article, which could be helpful to add. The lead does not include information that isn't present in the rest of the article. The section is concise and to the point, so I would say this article has a pretty good lead section.
Content: I think that all of the information included in the article is relevant to the topic. When looking through the sources, it appears that many of the cited references are between the years 1990 and 2010, which could suggest the need for some more up to date information. I am not too knowledgeable on asbestos, so I would have to do a little more research to determine if all the necessary information is present, but I believe all the content that is currently in the article is relevant. This article does not really appear to address populations that have been historically underrepresented in relation to health impacts of asbestos, but it does identify certain working populations as groups experiencing higher risks.
Tone and balance: Overall I found the tone and balance of this article to be fitting. It does not appear to favor one side over the other, but rather shares a neutral, informative approach on asbestos exposure and its human health impacts. It looks like there could be information from other countries added to the litigation section in order to fully represent a worldwide view of the topic.
Sources and references: I think the sources and references for this article are one thing that could be improved. Many of the sources are older than 2010, and I'm sure there has been research done since then that could add valuable information. However, the many sources that are present do seem to reflect a wide variety of literature. I did see two instances where "citation needed" was present, so this article would benefit from adding sources to these facts. Many academic journals are listed in the references, which is a good sign.
Organization and writing quality: I would say in general the writing is clear and professional, but I do see some improvements that could be made. I did see a couple sentences with minor grammatical errors, and identified a few sentences that could be rewritten to be more clear and concise. I do think the way this article is organized allows it to flow pretty well, so I don't see any necessary changes regarding this area.
Images and media: I think the images add to the overall understanding of the topic. There are captions for every picture, but I think they could be edited slightly to be more clear and concise. Some of the pictures near the top of the article are crowded together, so these could be spaced a little more to make the article more visually appealing.
Talk page: The discussion on the talk page is very limited, and only includes a couple comments from an editor who added external links. The article is listed as C class article in all of the WikiProjects that it is apart of. I think the talk page of this article is lacking compared to what we have discussed about talk pages in the online trainings.
Overall status: I think this article does a pretty good job of providing a comprehensive overview on the health impacts of asbestos. I think strengths include the thoroughness and the organizational structure of the article. I think the article could be improved by adding some more current sources and some small grammatical corrections. I would say this article is well-developed, and it appears complete.
Feedback from instructors[edit]
Good analysis! Your point of improving citations is very important. TMorata (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)