User:Blabys/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Childhood gender nonconformity

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 I believe it can help create a basis for understanding gender non-conformity and the complexity of gender expression before watching film(s) that contain characters, themes, or questions relating to this subject. My first impression of the article was that it is very long, covering a variety of topics relating to Childhood gender nonconformity without bias.

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.)

Everything in the article seemed relevant to the original topic, the only thing that could have distracted me was when they delved into Gender dysphoria in a separate heading as it seemed like a separate topic to me, despite being very closely tied to Gender nonconformity. However, the article in general seems very up to date, with edits being made multiple times a month up to and including the present month. Something missing from the article that could be interesting to add for context would be how childhood gender nonconformity is represented in the media, including whether it reflects the studies and facts in the article, how far back characters actively portray CGN with specific examples, and other useful information that might help create an understanding of how CGN is portrayed in the media. Upon looking back, one notable equity gap could be that the article talks about children experiencing CGN as either an ambiguous girl or boy. It doesn’t take into account how the experience, treatment, or understanding of CGN might differ among children of different races, religions, cultural backgrounds, or even geographical locations. Adding this information would definitely help to create a deeper understanding of the topic.

However, the article does do a good job in remaining unbiased, making sure to include information and studies from those who accept CGN as natural and wish to nurture and care for children experiencing it, as well as from those who see it as unnatural and wish to develop and use specific treatments and ideology to help children to return to what they believe is the correct expression of their gender. As such, there are no viewpoints that seem to be unfairly overrepresented or underrepresented. The links I tried following worked, giving easy access to the articles cited, except one which only have a physical copy available for purchase. They also seemed to correctly rely the information the article referenced, and all came from diverse scientific peer reviewed journals. For the sources with bias, that bias was clearly stated in the article after carefully and successfully laying out what the bias was trying to argue in the first place so they were properly represented.

In the talk section of this article, they discuss the same concerns I had about the confusion of a separate headings for gender dysphoria and clinical treatments for gender dysphoria. One user brought up the point that there is already an article pertaining to Gender dysphoria in children, and that CGN does not directly lead to gender dysphoria as “just because a boy is stereotypically feminine, or a girl is stereotypically masculine, does not mean that they are transgender, or will become transgender, or that they experience gender dysphoria in any way.” (Hist9600, 12 September 2023).

This article is currently at a C-class on Wikipedia’s content assessment scale, meaning it is considered substantial but still requires more information, sources, or other due diligence to be considered entirely reliable. This article is also part of the WikiProject LGBT studies, which hopefully means that a lot of work and attention will go into making sure this article achieves a higher class.

Feedback
Good job! Chronophoto (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)