User:Metroblum/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 studies

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 am majoring in Gender Studies, so I wanted to see whether the Wikipedia page was comprehensive. Gender Studies is an area of study that several people write off as having a lack of nuance, so it is crucial that Wikipedia (a source upon which so many people rely) has a comprehensive article to help begin to educate people. My preliminary assumption of the article is that is focuses heavily on specific aspects of gender studies that I would not necessarily put at the forefront of the topic. Similarly, it seems like it neglects to mention other crucial elements of the field.

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 does not provide a description of the article's major sections. I think that it does not focus enough on the intersection of gender studies and sexuality studies, and it barely mentions queer studies at the end of the overview section. Because sexuality studies is not mentioned, Michel Foucault is not mentioned, who is crucial to the study of gender studies.

The article doesn't mention that the field of gender studies has been heavily dominated by cisgender white women, which hurts its reliability. I also think that the absence of Kimberle Crenshaw hurts the article, since her introduction of intersectionality has helped increase representation within the field of gender studies.

The article's content is disproportionately spent discussing psychoanalysis, which is not the primary aspect of gender studies. Similarly, the article devotes a section to Gender in Asia and Polynesia, which, again, is not what I know to be a major tenet of the field of gender studies. Lastly, the article does not focus on the different waves of feminism or crucial feminist philosophers (for example, Catharine MacKinnon), both of which I think are crucial to the history of gender studies.

Although the tone seems to be neutral, since the article does not mention intersectionality, it seems to be talking about gender studies as primarily cisgender studies.

The citation links work and the author of this article ensured that the sources supported their claims. Most of the authors listed are white and many of them are cited several times. Each source seems to be peer reviewed, which makes me think that they are reliable.

The article is not noticeably well-written and this writing style makes the content less accessible. I think the sections devoted to the article should have been more prominent to the topic and reflective of modern day Introduction to Gender Studies classes.

The "Talk" section is scathing. Several Wikipedia contributors are unhappy with the lack of diversity and poor writing quality. The article is rated as C-Class by WikiProject Vital Articles and is part of three WikiProjects.

As I mentioned above, Wikipedia discusses this topic from a less diverse lens than we use when we discussed it in class. The article makes gender studies seem almost one-dimensional and needs much updating.