User:Ahmyers10/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: Straight ally
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I selected this article because it directly applies to the main mission of my Practice Organization in building allies of the LGBTQ+ community. Not only does it highlight the meaning of what   this allyship specifically entails, but it also includes the organization itself (PFLAG National) as an entity that focuses on this notion.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
While the Lead does have an introductory sentence that defines what a "straight ally" is, it does not speak to the rest of the article. The Lead seemed to be too specific in some areas and too vague in others - with the LGBTQ+ community being so expansive, I feel that the terms used in the Lead should be more all-encompassing. Even though the article only has one major section after the Lead, that section is not mentioned at all in the introduction, making the Lead seem somewhat off topic. The Lead would insinuate that the article would mainly be covering how straight allies or formed or are defined, but rather it explores the role of organizations and well-known individuals instead. In my opinion, I think the Lead is almost too concise, and leaves out important information that could be useful to both the introduction and overall understanding of what an ally is.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content of the article (or lack thereof) is arguably the most alarming part of the article because there is so little, and of the content that is present, most of it is dedicated to information irrelevant to the Lead. The single section in the article describes very brief backgrounds of several different activist organizations that draw from straight allies but does not go into detail of what any of them entail. So while it is somewhat relevant to the topic, I feel there should be more devoted to explaining what the role of an ally is and how they contribute to social movements. The content does seem up to date, however some terms used have the potential to be changed to be more socially inclusive, but this critique could just be a critique of my progressive leaning bias. At the end of the article, it sheds light on the experience of children of queer parents, specifically highlighting the sentiment of Senator Zach Wahls, and while I think this is a valuable perspective in what constitutes an ally, his feelings are very harsh towards the queer community in wanting recognition and the argument seem quite subjective and unnecessarily detailed in relation to the rest of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall feeling of the article is neutral but there is a large feeling of topics within being underrepresented. I would like to see more information showing the purpose of allies beyond simply understanding the hardship of the community, and showing more of what an ally can do in terms of activism and supporting policymaking for tangible change. Especially since the organizations it mentions forms allies as a way to gain legislative support, it only makes sense to elaborate on the goals on those activist organizations. I would say the one topic that is overrepresented (as mentioned before) is the conflict faced by children of LGBTQ+ identifying parents because it basically says that they feel less of an ally, and more of an actual member of the community even though they are not queer. Although this is a valid concern, I feel that it should not take up a ton of space within the article. Instead, there should be more dedicated to the pros and cons of allyship - how motivations can be distorted, how motivations are manifested, etc. There is no obvious attempt of persuasion within the article but I strongly feel that both more history of ally activism in social movements should be present, in addition to multiple perspective on the effectiveness and actual impact of these allies.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources do reflect the information in the article, however that being said, the information in the article is not substantial. Most of the sources used are mission statements from queer/trans advocacy websites, and while these sources are official, they are not strong documents to base the majority of the article off of as they are not scholarly. The article only uses two peer-reviewed sources but does not draw upon them very heavily. The sources do appear to be current and their links do work but they communicate that the only available information on straight allies is mainly through these organizations, when in actuality, there is significant research on the topic.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
As mentioned earlier, the article seems to almost be too concise for the information is very minimal. It is easy to read however the article does not have more than two sentences on one idea, and could use some more in-depth analysis. Though it does not appear to have any spelling or grammatical errors, the organization could be tweaked. If I was to edit the page, I would separate the second section into two so the frustration of children of queer parents can be categorized into a "criticism" section, in which more elaboration of the criticism can occur in order to address one of the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Finding images to capture the nature of the topic is difficult because being a straight ally is an identity without notable physical attributes. I think it is good that the first picture they show a picture of the straight ally flag as a clear representation of the identity. The other two photos are neatly organized on the side with clear captioning but I am not so sure they provide the best idea of what an ally is - both show groups of adults participating in Pride Parade marches which is a big part of the topic, but I feel there are other pictures that could give a more holistic view of straight allies. Images do adhere to the regulations and do seem fairly recent and up to date.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The Talk page shows that this article is rated a Start-Class and is part of the LGBT Studies WikiProject, a project dedicated to ensuring a comprehensive coverage of LGBT based issues. The outstanding difference between the conversations being held on the talk page versus the conversations being held in the classroom is that those online are more occupied with deciding who counts as an ally while those in the classroom focus on the role of an ally in general. I find it fairly interesting that this is the most debated topic on the talk page because debating what celebrities are straight allies seems insignificant compared to making sure that the background and definition of allies is accurate. For example, Lady Gaga, Obama, and Mary Bono among others, were all topics in the Talk page as to whether they fit the mold of the ally identity. I am happy to see that the celebrity section is not visible on the actual article but it seems odd that it would be such a common theme of discussion. The more valuable discussion that I noticed was in deciding whether the page should be more inclusive of the global perspective - one user felt that the article is very biased to American experiences with straight allyship. I agree that it should highlight experiences abroad, however from what I have found, research outside the US on straight allies is much harder to come by, as many countries still have policies directly against queer people.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think the article could use a lot of work - it is clearly still in its early stages, which make sense considering the straight allies in social movements is a fairly recent idea that is slowly gaining more prominence. I think the strength in the article is that is it easy to read and simply understood, but it can be improved by filling in the many gaps of information. The status of its underdevelopment can be fixed by adding multiple categories such as how allies are formed, motivations of being an ally, criticisms of those motivations and how allyship works as a way to politicize issues within the community. Again, as the idea of a straight ally is relatively new, this article is a good start, but there are definitely some refining touches that can be made in order to make it more comprehensive in addressing the topic's complexity.

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: Talk:Straight ally