User:Consast/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Care work

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 have a deep interest in understanding the role that care work plays in our society, as well as how it is often devalued by it. It is important to learn how and why care work exists as it is now by understanding the social and cultural forces that have shape it. From what I have read, I believe the article is well-written and does use various disciplines ranging from economics to gender studies to provide a broad understanding of it. However, I do believe that there were some important sections missing.

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.)

The lead section is short and concise and does provide a general overview of what care work is however it does not include a description of all the article's major sections. For example, it does not mention its relationship to the market economy or why women tend to dominate fields in this type of work. Explaining the latter is a crucial aspect of this topic, however it is included at the end of the article. Incorporating it at the beginning might provide the reader a better overview of this topic. Moreover, throughout the article there is no acknowledgment of how care work experience differs in different groups of women. For instance, it does not provide a section describing the role that race and ethnicity play in care work. Some historical context is missing that includes how slavery and forced migration have contributed to care work as we know it. In addition, there is one section titled "Division of socio-economic class", however it is only one sentence long.

The article suggests under "Women and Unpaid Care Work" that women are biologically predisposed to be more affectionate when performing care work, however the source comes from one research article and date back to 1997. Other than that, the article is easy to read and from a neutral point of view. I did notice that the article is rated C-class. I agree with this rating as I think that it still missing some important information, and as one of the editors mentioned some sections seem to be a bit confusing like the explanation of the Baumol effect.