User:Amarie2003/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sexual suggestiveness - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have a personal interest in the psychology of sexuality and a lot of the problems related to that.

Evaluate the article
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead doesn't really include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead includes information that is present throughout the whole article. The lead is very concise and not overly detailed.

The article's content is relevant to the topic, but it isn't very up-to-date. There is no content that is missing or out of place. The article does not really address a lot of historically underrepresented populations or topics.

The article is neutral and there are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another or away from another.

All facts are backed up by reliable, thorough and current sources. However, the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors and historically marginalized individuals. There are a few better sources that are available that are also a little more up-to-date. Also, all of the links work.

The article is well written, concise, clear and easy to read. The article doesn't have any grammatical and spelling errors. The article is well organized.

The article does not include a lot of images that enhance the understanding of the topic. The one image that exists on the article is not very well captioned because I don't understand it's relevance to the article very well, I feel like there could have been a different art piece chosen that would have been more relevant. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

On the talk page for this article there is a lot of conversation about rewriting sentences to change the tone a little bit or making the concepts easier to understand. This article is rated as a stub-class and it is a part of the WikiProject of Sexology and Sexuality. We haven't discussed this topic in class so I don't know if it is discussed in Wikipedia differently.

The article's strengths are the breadth of topics this article covers that I wouldn't have thought to include, but they prove to be very interesting and helpful to understanding sexual suggestiveness. However, this article lacks in diversity of authors and it could also have more topics that discuss the experiences of marginalized groups in relation to this topic. This article is well-developed, but it could still have some more information.