User:Apuhala/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia 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.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A 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.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The 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.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A 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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Gender expression

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I have chosen this article because I think that the way people express gender, or lack thereof, is constantly evolving and it is a topic that find interesting and also personal.

Evaluate the article

The introduction to this article could be significantly better. I think the first sentence is good, however I was distracted by the mention of gender roles, without elaborating more deeply into how they relate to gender expression. This article, though expresses a lot of helpful information, is not up to date with the correct terminology, such as assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, non binary identity, etc. It would be helpful if the article elaborated on this and potentially gave a summary of how freedom of gender expression has evolved over the last few years. Also, though there is a section on discrimination, the article does not go into how intersectional identity is connected to gender expression. For example, black trans women are significantly more affected by sexual violence compared to cis-women. It is important to mention how different intersectional identities affect one's safety and ability to express the identity.

Additionally, this article focused primarily on the experience of gay and lesbian people, with some mention of gender non-conforming individuals, however, I think that more focus should have been put on how gender expression has evolved as our understanding of gender has evolved. The tone of the article is fairly neutral, but it is written from a very binary point of view. Although that is a critical part of the world we live in, non-binary identity and experiences also need to be a bigger part of the conversation.

Most of the sources referenced in the article work and are reliable, however there is certainly an overrepresentation of white authors. Also, the structure of this article is not conducive to understanding the topic. There should be a section for history, the introduction should be more developed and specific, and the "confusion between gender expression..." section should have a different title and should appear later in the article. Additionally, some of the sources reference other wikipedia articles instead of reliable sources.

Looking at the talk page of this article, it is clear that there is debate surrounding gender identity compared to gender expression. Seeing as these are different terms, it would be helpful to explain how they are different in this article. Also, though there is a figure on the right of the article referencing its connection to transgender topics, that is not mentioned in the article.

Overall, compared to how we have talked about gender expression in class, this article takes a more dated and binary approach. Though it has good bones, more explanation of how intersectional identity and different types of gender identities may or may not influence people's decisions to express gender is needed. Additionally, there is very little about how gender expression has evolved over time.