User:Comm100/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]Link: Feminist Rhetoric
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because it seemed interesting and like it is a relevant topic in today's world.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
[edit]The lead section has introductory sentences that explains what feminist rhetoric is and is not. I don't think this section provides an overview of the article's major sections (history, challenges, etc.). The lead is fairly concise and mainly focuses on defining feminist rhetoric. It does not include information that is not present in the article.
Content
[edit]The article's content is relevant and up-to-date. The article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps because it discusses women and "scholars of color." It also mentions that "transgender discourse" is an element of feminist rhetoric. The content provides a general look at many aspects of feminist rhetoric, but it does not delve deeply into any of them.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The article is mostly neutral, but could be viewed as supporting feminist rhetoric. The article does not really discuss any opposition to the feminist rhetoric movement. It does not try to persuade readers toward any one point of view. The article accurately described how minority groups have influenced feminist rhetoric.
Sources and References
[edit]Facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources. There are many academic journal articles cited. I clicked a few links and they all worked. There are sources written by historically marginalized authors, such as bell hooks.
Organization and Writing Quality
[edit]There are many sentences that were wordy and difficult to comprehend. The authors overuse the words "rhetoric" and "canon." There are only a few grammatical errors. The article is organized with sections for the major themes.
Images and Media
[edit]The article has two images. The caption for the photograph of bell hooks is vague and does not have a period on the end. The second image is well captioned. The images are on the right margin of the article. More examples of feminist rhetoric would be helpful.
Talk Page Discussion
[edit]The article was nominated for deletion in 2018, but the discussion decided to keep it. They decided to keep the article because it is on a notable topic and could be edited to improve it. The article is part of WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Writing. The talk page is just a few students asking questions about whether they should move a paragraph.
Overall Impressions
[edit]The article's overall status is pretty good. It is on a notable topic, cites reliable sources, and is unbiased. The article is organized well and touches on several aspects of feminist rhetoric. It could be improved by making the sentences easier to read and using less jargon.