User:Jocedye/Endocrine disruptor: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
LE4rSt0966 (talk | contribs) m signed off properly on old comment |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Overlooking the article, overall it seems well formed, but looking through some of the sources they appear to be rather dated, with one going back to 2002. While the data may echo the same results now, it may be useful to find more recent contributions to the topic. Additionally, the lead banner of this article mentions that more medical sources and uses too many primary sources, which could be a good start to editing this article, by backing up the claims made by the article with secondary sources. Also, one might be able to add to/update the section of known endocrine disruptors. |
<nowiki>Overlooking the article, overall it seems well formed, but looking through some of the sources they appear to be rather dated, with one going back to 2002. While the data may echo the same results now, it may be useful to find more recent contributions to the topic. Additionally, the lead banner of this article mentions that more medical sources and uses too many primary sources, which could be a good start to editing this article, by backing up the claims made by the article with secondary sources. Also, one might be able to add to/update the section of known endocrine disruptors. --~~~~ </nowiki> |
||
Revision as of 23:41, 5 February 2023
Overlooking the article, overall it seems well formed, but looking through some of the sources they appear to be rather dated, with one going back to 2002. While the data may echo the same results now, it may be useful to find more recent contributions to the topic. Additionally, the lead banner of this article mentions that more medical sources and uses too many primary sources, which could be a good start to editing this article, by backing up the claims made by the article with secondary sources. Also, one might be able to add to/update the section of known endocrine disruptors. --~~~~
In the first paragraph, there is a quote that is pretty long. I think that more sources could be used to instead form a better description of the overview instead of one long quote containing a lot of specific information. In the introductory section, I think more could be said about what endocrine disruptors actually are for readers who may not already have a scientific background and understanding. Then, in a new article section, the history and social significance of them should be discussed. I think talking about the groups who are opposed to them in the introduction is not the best structure for those who are not well informed. Mgattar (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)