User:AaronAGolab/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Flame Retardant: (Flame retardant)
- Flame Retardants are a common additive to furniture and textiles, they are everywhere and they have potential/established negative health and environmental effects.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The leading sentence uses the word "subsumes" which seems overly technical when "covers" would be more clear. Otherwise the lead sentence is reasonably descriptive. The section does not include a brief description of each major section of the article, never once mentioning anything about the environmental and health issues. The lead includes information on how flame retardants can be added to polymers that is not present in the rest of the article. This information is, in my opinion, a bit overly detailed as it begins to tell you how each class of flame retardant is added to polymers.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Is the content up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Content evaluation
[edit]The article is broken up into 5 sections, Classes, Retardation Mechanisms, Use and Effectiveness, Environmental and Health issues, and Global Demand. All 5 contain relevant information regarding the topic. Some subsections, such as the National Bureau of Standards testing seem to be in the wrong section (should be in use and effectiveness), possibly placed there on purpose to undercut the impact of the environmental section. Many sources referenced are from within the past decade, and it appears that most if not all research is up to date. Notably there isn't much in the way of information presented on ecological effects of flame retardants in the environment, it instead focuses more human health effects. The article doesn't clearly deal with any equity gaps to my knowledge, though perhaps there could bee more information on how the global electronic recycling system places workers at recycling facilities at risk? Not sure about that one.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article, for the most part, is written in a very neutral manner. The only major issue that jumped out to me was the previously mentioned subsection in the wrong area, which likely had a specific motive behind it. To be quite honest the article spends a large amount of time on health and environmental effects, making up over half the article. While this is particularly important given the topic, it is the most overrepresented section particularly when compared to the effectiveness section.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Occasionally facts are presented without source (such as the organohalogen part of the classes section). The sources are mostly from the past decade unless they are referring to historical events and the like. They don't have a lot on ecological effects of the various chemical classes, though i wonder if there are more details on those chemical classes' specific pages. I cannot tell if they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors directly, however there appears to be diversity in the last names listed for scholarly articles. Most links worked, some did not however.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article isn't necessarily concise in all areas. The health concerns section seems to dedicate a paragraph for each source, detailing information about each study, instead of synthesizing them into a shorter section that lists health effects commonly found across studies.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The article includes no images whatsoever.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]The talk page starts off with a large opinionated section on how editors think people are exposed (without citing any sources) and how the article shouldn't focus so much on health effects because they feel like its overblown. Other sections tend to either focus on chemistry issues (like what is appropriate terminology and what is BS) or editing issues (merging sections). The article is a part of three wikiprojects: Chemistry. Fire Service, and Polymers. It is rated as a start-class for Chemistry and Fire Service, as well as of high importance in Chemistry.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- What is the article's overall status?
- What are the article's strengths?
- How can the article be improved?
- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
Overall evaluation
[edit]I would say that while the article is for the most part good, there is definitely some areas of improvement. Most information is well sourced, however you get some things like "Gas phase radical quenching" without a single source. I feel as though there is definite room for improvement looking at ecological effects.
Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: