User:ACelesteL/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Atheist feminism
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I chose this article because I find interesting the topics the title merges to create a bigger concept that is compelling by itself as well.  It is a topic that certainly requires multiple voices to advocate a nonbiased consensus,  and it is also one that is not often discussed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The Lead part of the article includes a very clear introductory sentence that describes the article's topic, but this section fails to include a brief description of the article's major sections or even to explain in better detail how the subject came to be or its origins, it is missing some general information about the topic.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The content does address topics related to historically unrepresented topics, but they are not very well developed and the movement is not adequately explained. The topic is not widely talked about or looked into, but there is some content gaps.  The content present is directly related to the topic but its relevancy is doubtful in some aspects.  The article does present up-to-date references.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * The whole article is purposely written to provide information about a specific and biased viewpoint of a group of people, but still, it is supposed to explain it in an objective and neutral way, this balance in missing a little bit in some parts.  I wouldn't say it attempts to persuade the reader to a position or away form another, but the tone does seem to heavily favor the topic.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * There are some current sources listed in the article, and there are a couple of historically marginalized individuals talked about. The authors vary for the most part, not many of them, if any, writes from a diverse spectrum in terms of the bias the topic has.  The article has many direct citations, which are taken out of documented experiences by people, not necessarily out of studies or organization of and that represent the topic.   Many of the links work, but there are a couple that do not.  There are also some claims that are not cited.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article does not have many studied information regarding the topic, it relays more in telling the experience of some historical and current people who represent it. So it is organized in sections divided for those people in chronological order.  There is not spelling errors, it is clear but not very concise.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * There are pictures in this article, but because of the gaps in the important parts of the general ideology of the topic, the pictures just represent the people the article is doing reference to, but they are well captioned.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * The conversations going on the talk page about how to represent this topic target specifically the viability of the references and also debates about wether or not the article should even be made.   This article is rated as C-Class, and is parts of the WikiProject Atheism and the WikiProject Feminism.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions
 * I think the article is poorly developed and poorly referenced, but it can be improved with the addition of sources to some claims, and of factual information of the actual ideology of the topic using a more neutral writing perspective.


 * 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?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: