This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Toxicology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as High-importance). Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology Mid‑importance Environmental toxicology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tatijohnson1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jakh8640.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabyruelas. Peer reviewers: Rrwolff21, Fkalrubaiee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Singhuh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From University of California, Davis Department of Environmental Toxicology:

"The scope of environmental toxicology is inclusive of naturally occurring agents such as metals, mycotoxins and bacterial elements as well as anthropogenic toxins like pesticides, food additives, industrial waste, and other chemicals."

Is this true? Contradicts the body of this article. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the rewrite today, without sources and annotated as subject line indicates. Suggest using a sandbox to work up a change like this rather than "work in progress" notation. etc Proofreader77 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(PS) Excuse persnickety tone re "work in progress" and comments. Too much coffee. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment. I will use the sandbox. Although, the quality and quantity of the information before my edit was really weak. Mnwolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwolf (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is really good. Thanks for sharing your information to make the environmental toxicology page a better wiki. ====Mnwolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwolf (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This version is entirely unacceptable and unsalvageable. It is a mish-mash of original research, original synthesis, bad prose, editorializing, irrelevant content, how-to guide, and blatant plagiarism. Please do not restore it, it really does not belong on Wikipedia.

The article needs to be re-written from scratch based on reliable sources rather than read like an indiscriminate repository of various factoids and "advice" related to entox. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not hopeless your ignorance about the subject it is.....your reference is a single website. You have no idea about EnTox. You need to spend sometime writing a good page about EnTox if you want to overwrite my work. Show me that you have substance writing a good page before cutting down a good source of information that people use everyday. Check the statistics, I made that page increase visitation and is easy to popo other peoples hard work. We can play this game as long as you want until you show me that you have a better page and information than the one I am providing. Otherwise I will continue to undo your work and I dont care how many wikistar you have....this is about scientific information. MnWolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwolf (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved from User talk:Headbomb)[reply]

I suggest you read the links I gave above, as well as WP:OWN. Your version is hopeless and you cannot build upon it, other than by deleting most of the material currently found in there. On the other hand, this version, while containing less stuff, is both policy-compliant, and much easier to build upon. I've requested feedback from the toxicology taskforce, as well as the chemistry and biology projects. Blindly reverting my edits to your preferred version won't get you very far, and might even get you blocked if you keep doing it against consensus. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am all in favor of consensus. I am glad that you request feedback from other taskforce. Again I am in favor of good science, but disagree how you delete completely my hard work. Although I understand that I am not familiar with wiki policies you mention previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwolf (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings. No one can be expected to know all the intricacies of Wikipedia. You learn through experience after all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To many new editor dismay, unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies often results in their hard work being questioned/deleted. But here goes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. "Books on the subject", "Professional journals", "EnTox related documentaries", "Searchable tox-related databases", and "Additional resources" are not finite lists and could in principle contain more items; this makes the lists indiscriminate. Verifiability policy requires that encyclopaedic material (prose) is attributed in-line. So the given sources (where possible per reliable source guideline) should be converted to references. The remaining ones per external link guideline should be trimmed to acceptable limit.

Being or not being familiar with the subject has little relevance to following proper Wikipedia policies. The burden of proof is with the editor who restores material, that has been as pointed out to be unsourced or original research. So, again Verifiability policy requires that you in-line reference all the material. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Some of these points (such as WP:OWN) are pretty obvious, and I will agree with many of the potentially "subjective" ones like a lot of grammar problems, awkward sentences, poor organization, etc, in [1]. Whether there is something worth preserving from that revision I am not as clear about, but I do not support restoring that revision wholesale. Kingdon (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental toxicology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325141232/http://www.actox.org/Home/tabid/726/Default.aspx to http://www.actox.org/Home/tabid/726/Default.aspx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section Overall, a good introduction to the Environmental toxicology.

Clear structure and Balanced Coverage I am not familiar with environmental toxicology, but as reading through the topic, the structure helped me understand the topic more. for coverage, maybe add more information explaining the PCBs through the example you have provided.

Neutral Content The tone of your writing is impartial and includes smart thoughts.

Reliable Sources A really good working list of sources, but I feel it's kind of everywhere. Maybe try to have all of the resources together instead for separating them such as Journals and further reading.

Generally, resembles your page is going admirably! Truly fascinating to peruse.Fkalrubaiee (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Fkalrubaiee[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ecokelbells (article contribs). Peer reviewers: DeVeggie314, AntiPrivet123.

— Assignment last updated by Branchiobdellid (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: ProdigyPanda.

— Assignment last updated by ProdigyPanda (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 19 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicnikk (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Boydak13 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]