User:AmandaGong/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender schema theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Because it is a theory that originated years ago and continues being quoted and evaluated nowadays.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section is pretty clear. In the first sentence, it provides the definition of Gender Schema Theory, and then it introduces its main contributor. Also, it briefly introduces another main concept that embedded in this theory -- sex-typing.

Content

The content is divided into five parts, with the first part -- sex-typing -- used to explain Gender Schema Theory, and the second part -- Gender Stereotypes -- explaining how it impacts individuals. In the third part, evidence is provided to support the theory. Then, in the fourth part, it elaborates on the application of the theory. Last but not least, it traces the development of the theory from the 1970s to 2017.

For the first part -- sex-typing, I would recommend providing a more detailed definition and maybe include some examples of what is sex-typing. Sex-type is directly used without further explanation, which might cause some confusion in the audience.

Tone and Balance

Overall, the article provides a neutral tone and does not intend to persuade the audience. However, because it only states theories and evidence that support the Gender Schema Theory, I would recommend including another section that discusses counter-evidence. This would provide a more holistic view of this theory.

Sources and References

All the resources are reliable secondary sources of information. However, the Evidence section does not cover some of the most recent literature, and there is not enough citation to fully support the argument. This is also true for the Legacy section; only two main articles are mentioned. I would recommend doing a more holistic literature research to include more sources that support or against this theory.

Images and Media

No, this article does not include any images or media. It is understandable because this article is about an abstract theory, so only words is enough to explain the theory.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is part of the Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. An unknown evaluator has provided the same comment as I do, that this article needs to add more regarding criticisms and counterexamples of the theory.

Overall Impression

Overall, this article is well-developed and can help the audience grasp this abstract concept and its main contributors. One main strength is that it provides a development of the theory, and because it includes the names of the main contributors, it encourages the audience to do further research on the topic if they are interested. One major thing that needs to be improved is to also add criticism to this theory so that the tone sounds more neutral.