User:24potatoes/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article Cisgender.

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 rated C-class by both WikiProject Gender studies and WikiProject LGBT studies, and because it relates to our class readings about sex, sex categories, and gender.

This article matters since it is listed under the Gender identities subcategory of the Transgender topics infobox but is relatively underdeveloped in length and body content compared to other pages under the same list such as Non-binary gender and Androgyny.

At first impression, the article is brief and gives an overview of the term "cisgender" in its etymological origins and common contemporary usage, as well as related terms such as heteronormativity. While the definition given for the term seems sufficient for a general understanding of the term to use colloquially, the article seems to focus a lot on the word cisgender and its history but gives less discussion about cisgender people and cisgender privilege, although there is some coverage of the term cisgender from the perspective of other groups such as intersex people.

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.)

Lead Section


 * The introductory sentence is to-the-point and clearly defines the topic.
 * The lead describes the major sections, but the sentence about the critiques section is ambiguous and could be more specific by referencing the two specific sub-topics under the critiques section.
 * All of the lead information is present in the article.
 * The lead is concise but I would maybe put the last sentence redirecting to the cissexism and cisnormativity pages a bit earlier in the lead since those terms are brought up earlier in the body of the article.

Content
 * In the Etymology and usage section, the first paragraph gives redundant examples of the Latin prefix cis- that could be removed, since it goes off-topic. The final sentence could be moved to the top of the paragraph before delving into the discussion of the prefix in order to improve clarity.
 * I think the article might merit an updated separate section dedicated to the importance of the term cisgender in transgender studies as mentioned at the end of first section, firstly because this page is listed under the Transgender topics series and a reader who finds this page from the Transgender topics infobox might be looking for more information relating the two, but also because the sentence references transgender studies since the 1990s while the sources cited are all more recent than that.
 * In the Critiques section the first sentence could be a bit more specific about the controversies about the term cisgender before exploring those examples more deeply.
 * Also in the Critiques section, the single reference to the novelist John Boyne's aversion to the term cisgender feels out of place when immediately followed by discourse about the term by larger groups like gender studies scholars and intersex groups. I would remove the part about John Boyne unless the sentiment reflected in that source was also echoed by other figures, and in that case would add another subsection treating that category of critiques in the Critiques section.
 * The article addresses topics related to transgender and gender non-conforming people who have been historically underrepresented, and the connection between these and the main topic do not have a particular section, which I think this article might benefit from.

Tone and Balance
 * The article maintains a neutral tone throughout; I think the only part where the writing gets a bit close to losing that tone is when quoting an opinion in the first paragraph of the Critiques section, but this could be fixed by rephrasing the presentation of the quote if needed.
 * The page has a pretty balanced variety of viewpoints on the term cisgender and claims for or against use of the term by different figures is sufficiently justified so that the article as a whole doesn't feel disposed towards one opinion.
 * The way that John Boyne's opinion is given rather independently of the other groups in the Critiques section makes it seem a bit like a fringe opinion, although I think the source in [31] also shares some of the same sentiment, so if there is more evidence for the same view I think these could be expanded on and given their own subsection.
 * The article does not read like it is trying to persuade the reader for one position or the other, but I think this is largely because the first half of the article is just giving definitions from a variety of different sources that seem to overlap (and could be reorganized to provide more clarity on the various terms that appear).

Sources and References
 * References [1] and [6] link to the same definition of cisgender on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and could be combined into one.
 * References [9] and [13] refer to the same piece by Serano and could be combined into one.
 * The original text of source [7] has somewhat of a biased tone (it is from a conservative news website) and only adjacently connects to the sentence the citation was added to, so a better source could maybe be found.
 * The sentence in the lead beginning with "The prefix cis-" might merit a citation.
 * The sources come mostly from the mid-2010s and could be updated with more recent literature.
 * Among the sources, [39] references writing by an intersex author and activist, but I think the article might merit being updated with more literature from intersex groups especially given the different connotation that the term cisgender may have for intersex people.
 * The links appear to be working.

Organization and Writing Quality
 * The article is clear and easy to read, and does not have any apparent grammatical or spelling errors.
 * As previously mentioned, I think the organization of the first section could be improved by grouping together the definitions of cissexual and possibly moving information relating to transgender studies to its own section that treats it more thoroughly. The first critique in the Critiques section could also be investigated a bit more, and possibly elaborated more in its own subsection if other sources share the same critique.

Images and Media
 * There are currently no images on the page; diagrams that illustrate the gender spectrum and/or gender expression and sex categories might be worth adding.

Talk page discussion
 * There is one thread about "Use of word [cisgender] as a slur" which mentions occasions when "cis" is used in a pejorative way, and I think one user was possibly pushing for more information to be added from this viewpoint and which ended up being reduced by other users to the Boyne quote in the Critiques section; this discussion thread might be why that mention of the Boyne quote seems to be hinting at other perspectives of the same kind, although no other examples were given in the article (I think even the Boyne quote could be removed if there aren't too many sources from that viewpoint, as it reads out of place).
 * There is another discussion pointing out the specific originator of the term cisgender and which was resolved by saying that the source cited for the origin of the term in the article actually has the information that the first user mentioned in more detail; I think the article might benefit from more details about this specific origin in the History section.
 * There is a discussion about a previous version of the article which said cisgender "describes a person whose gender identity and sex assigned at birth are the same"; one user points out that this phrasing of gender identity and sex to be "the same" obscures the definition and conflates gender with sex in a way that is inconsistent with trans ideology and feminist theory. The thread is resolved by changing the phrasing to "gender identity corresponds to sex assigned at birth". I think this Wikipedia discussion closely echoes our in-class discussions about the differences between sex and gender, but differs in that its goal is to find a suitable, non-misleading phrasing for a definition without specific exploration of the nuances between sex and gender whereas our discussion investigated more closely different transhistorical ideas about sex and gender.
 * The article is rated C-class by WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject LGBT studies, and WikiProject Linguistics.

Overall Impressions
 * The article's overall status is C-class.
 * I think the article's strengths are that it has a clear and readable lead which gives a decent overview of the topic, and provides a variety of definitions of cisgender as well as different viewpoints on the term.
 * I think the article would benefit from some reorganization in the Etymology and usage section, specifically when many related terms are introduced and defined. In the Critiques section, the Boyne quote at the beginning feels out of place and could be removed or, if enough sources offer the same viewpoint, expanded upon in its own subsection. I think that although there is a subsection on intersex groups and their perception of the term, this subsection could be developed more given the different connotation the term may have for intersex people. Lastly, given that the article is in the Transgender topics series, there could be another section specifically on the term as used in transgender studies.
 * I think the article is somewhat underdeveloped in its treatment of transgender studies and intersex groups with relation to the topic; treating these subjects in more detail might help improve the depth of the article.