User:Delendaaest/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?

Non-binary gender

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is about a gender identity I have and I've read a lot about it from other sources. I was interested in examining what information people put about it on wikipedia and the types of sources they used, as well as the quantity of information on the page because the identity is less widely held than others. My first impression of the article was that it included more information than I thought it would but that some subsections included in it are seriously lacking information.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section provides the general information someone who is unfamiliar with nonbinary gender identity would need to know while remaining concise, and the leading sentence includes relevant information and a useful link to the gender binary page. However, I agree with the talk section comment that having a sentence placing nonbinary identity under the transgender umbrella but also later saying that not all nonbinary people identify as transgender is confusing and that there needs to be some type of qualification to the first statement.

The subsections for the article, including different terminology for identities, the history of nonbinary identity, pronouns and titles, legal recognition, discrimination, symbols and observances, and population figures are all relevant information, but some of these sections are incredibly limited in the amount of information they present (including history and poulation figures, which are limited to five countries).

Overall, the article is concise, accurately (and sufficiently) cited, and does not use persuasive language. Images include different flags used by different identities under the nonbinary gender umbrella, as well as displays of flags at pride parades in other countries and a 2021 survey graphic demonstrating preferred pronouns.

On the talk page the main conversation as of late is the nonbinary umbrella discussion of how to relate the terms nonbinary and transgender. There was also a previous discussion about how exactly to define the term nonbinary. There is not a lot on the talk page overall, which was surprising to me given that the article is marked as a vital article which should be of high quality. The current rating for the page is C-Class, meaning there are large gaps in content and the picture the article provides is incomplete.

For future edits, the pages should focus on closing the gap in information it provides to the best of its ability (adding more statistics for more countries and a broader history of the origin of the identity, for a start). The page should also work to clarify how it discusses the relationship between transgender identities and nonbinary identities (completing some edits proposed in the talk page). In general it is difficult to find statistics on nonbinary populations because in many cases these are not tracked, but the article would be better if it mentioned instances like this instead of providing only very limited data where it is available.