User:Bmuffler/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: (link) Queer ecology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I've never heard of it before, but I am deeply invested in queer and gender theory, so I naturally graviated towards it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It uses different language, but yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Dualism is only specifically mentioned once, BUT many of the topics mentioned inherently challenge binaries/dualistic ways of thinking.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, for sure.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * This topic appears to be broad, but all the topics covered are connected. I wonder about the deeper intricacies of queer ecology...
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Sources appear to be from the last 8 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a lot of space for content to be built upon - I do not know enough to say whether anything is missing.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it simply explains the facets of queer ecology.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not necessarily
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, most ideas are only introduced for a sentence or two.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I am assuming so, given that I know little about the available literature
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are recent
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yep!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is very clear, but does not go far beyond the surface.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that immediately jumped out
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes!

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * n/a

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None :(
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * yes/c-class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * n/a

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Complete, in that it's not a "Stub"
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good introductory material!
 * How can the article be improved?
 * DEFINITELY with more detail!!
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Wholeheartedly underdeveloped :(

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: