User:Chri.Konstantinou/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feminist rhetoric

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.)

My partner, Eltavious, and I have chosen this article to evaluate, as the title seemed thought-provoking and very interesting. Additionally, the subject of “Feminist rhetoric” is a matter we both did not know much about, so evaluating this article and learning more about it appears intriguing and educational.

Women’s opinions were oppressed and overlooked for more than 25 centuries. Women and other marginalised groups rebelled and started to gain power though the writing of bell hooks. It has only been 60 years since Feminist rhetors began their own revolution for equality. We were baffled by the significant amount of time of women oppression compared to how many years they have started their revolution towards respect and acknowledgement.

Feminist rhetors spoke up about academic, cultural, and social issues for the first time during the Second Wave feminism in the 60’s and 70’s. Throughout history, women were silent; however, we believe that they could have provided men with alternative perspectives that could have helped humanity avoid certain issues.

It is common knowledge that women tend to be undervalued and their abilities tend to be diminished by people. Such under-appreciation led individuals to have no respect for women; hence, females were forced to acquire masculine names when they wanted to work or even publish articles, books, etc.

While reading the title of the article for the first time, I was relatively confused. As we have already stated the article is called “Feminist rhetoric”. I understand the concept of feminism and what it encompasses. However, rhetoric is a term I would normally associate with rhetorical questions, which are meant to be catalysts of reflection. Consequently, when I read feminist rhetoric, I assumed that the article would discuss a reflection regarding a feminist scope.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION

The lead section provides the reader with what we could identify as an abstract. It defines Feminist rhetoric in a direct way in the very first sentence. The first paragraph of the article grants you the preliminary idea of the article that will be further developed and discussed in detail while further reading. Thus, the lead section of the article does not provide the readers with extensive information on the topic. Last but not least, the lead does not include information that is not presented in the article.

CONTENT

The author discusses Feminist rhetoric, and it scopes, such as: mission, history, challenges, applications, implications, and themes. The writer does not evaluate each section in depth. The information provided is quite superficial and outdated; most examples presented consist in events or women from the 20th century. There is no information regarding the current state of this movement, how it has been further developed, how close they are to their objectives, and who is currently involved in it. There is no specification regarding how it was created, where it is most commonly represented. Whilst all the information written pertains the topic, it is easy to notice that there is a lot of information and data missing. The author could have resorted to numerical data, statistical facts, or even just a current update to justify the data published. Even though the article analyses women as a historically underrepresented population; it fails to acknowledge that within this underrepresented group there is discrimination between women of alternate race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.

TONE AND BALANCE

I believe the article is not neutral toned. Whilst the author does not directly state any type of hate towards men. We may easily acknowledge a resentful tone regarding the issue, which shows an author that is trying to persuade the reader into agreement. The lack of example, supportive data, and statistical information lead the article to be mostly based on the opinion and emotion of the writer; which is a mediocre persuasion technique. The author is quite repetitive and focuses on previous events, there are no examples of current events of the issue.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

The author drew information from 29 distinct references in order to create a well-rounded article. Therefore, the facts given in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are both older and up to date. This, creates a feeling that this article has been composed by facts given from a diverse spectrum of authors. Last but not least, I checked most of the links and they all work.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY

The article is well-written, concise, and clear. Even though the article was relatively easy to read, I would like if it presented more facts about the past and the present. Personally, I was not able to detect any grammatical or spelling errors, but I might be mistaken as English is not my first language. Last but not least, the article is well-written and very well-organized. It is separated into sections according to their history, their definition, their goals, their themes, their challenges, and their applications/implications. In every single one of those questions, the author provides data and a vast clear information. I really enjoyed reading this article and felt compelled to keep on reading.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

The article provides two images. Image number one depicts a dark-skinned woman. In the picture, she seems to be talking and in a delightful mood. The caption under the first image is “The writing of bell hooks has been influential for feministic rhetoric”. Furthermore, image number two depict a poster of 9 women surrounded by books with the saying “Ni Oprimides Pel Patriarcat Ni Expolotades Pel Capitalisme”. From this saying on the picture we understand that these women have been fighting against patriarchy and capitalism. The caption under the image provided is: “An example of visual feminist rhetoric: wallpaper (poster) protesting patriarchy and capitalism on the campus of Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain”.

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION

On the talk page, I did not find any comments or ideas presented by fellow readers. Additionally, I could not find how this article has been rated.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

This article was truly interesting. Thus, I do not feel that it is 100% reliable. Even though the facts provided to us were easy to comprehend, I would feel more passionate about the article if it presented more facts, data, and history. The lack of supporting facts does allow the reader to see the value of the topic. Moving forward, the strength of this article is that it presented the topic fight away and also provided a definition of what Feminist rhetoric is. Therefore, I believe that the article has room for advancement. Even though the article was updated recently, it does not present recent facts about the group of women fighting for equality.