User:Jxlene/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]Personal Attributes Questionnaire
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]The reason I have chosen to evaluate this article is because I am very interested in Gender Studies. I am particularly interested in how societal gender norms affect personality traits. This could be a useful tool in determining whether there is a strong correlation between personality traits, masculinity, and femininity. My initial impression of the page is that there could be a substantial amount of improvement as it is very short.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
Lead section
The article does not have a lead which describes the topics discussed within it, and immediately starts with the content. For possible future edits, it may be insightful to include one, for organizational purposes as well. The article includes an introductory sentence which includes the two scales of measure.
Content
[edit]The content is relevant to the topic as it discusses what the Personal Attributes Questionnaire is, when it was first developed, and the items that comprise the scales. However based off of the published date of the resources used, it seems as though it is quite dated as the sources are from the late 1990s to the early 2000s. There are no modern developments or critiques about the questionnaire, and does not include whether or not it is still used in modern gender study research. In terms of missing content, there are various topics that could be added, such as: limitations and criticisms, theoretical basis, similarities and differences between other measures, how it is used, etc. However, there is no content that does not belong, but rather it is insufficient in educating readers. It does not address topics related to underrepresented populations such as non-binary and fluid gender identities.
Tone and Balance
[edit]The article has a neutral point of view, and mainly focuses on the structure of the questionnaire. However again, for further edits could possibly focus on critiques. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any direction.
Sources and References
[edit]The facts are from reliable peer reviewed studies that have used the questionnaire. However the amount of sources is limited to three, all of which are relatively old. Information about the authors was difficult to obtain for the two inaccessible sources, therefore it is harder to determine if there were any author bias. As for the accessible source (the literature review), the author is an associate professor of Iowa State University who focused on how gender roles affects consumer market. The first source is accessible, but the other two do not have links therefore the reader does not have access to them. There are better sources available such as including newer peer-reviewed articles.
Organization and writing quality
[edit]The article has grammatical errors within it, making it hard to read for the viewer. In an organizational aspect, it is a bit disorganized as there are no sections and not a proper introduction of the topic.
Images and Media
[edit]There are no images or media included within the article.
Talk page discussion
[edit]There are discussion on the talk page of the article, and has not been rated on the Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Though, the page was part of a Wiki Education Foundation course assignment. This topic does not pertain to the current course, however in other gender study courses, it was introduced as an example of an early scale to measure gender identity.
Overall impressions
[edit]The overall status of the article is quite lackluster as it provides insufficient details of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. The strengths are providing a based overview and structure of the questionnaire, and explains the measures and the associated gender identity. The article can be improved by including sections outlining different topics such as theoretical background of the questionnaire, applications, limitations and critiques, and including more current sources that have a diverse author base. The article is poorly developed and needs much improvement.