User:Daniellepitter/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
English studies

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 background in English literature, Communications and Journalism. I'm a poet, book blogger and author, and I thought this article would be a good way for me to learn how to edit. I also chose this article to evaluate because of the many errors I have read about it. It matters because others who are studying English studies should have a clear understanding of what English studies is, through this article.

Preliminary impression of it was I thought the article gave good basic information, but didn't elaborate on further details. The text is very basic and bland, and only discusses English in academia, and nothing else (even though English can be used many other areas).

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.)

Lead Section
The lead section is fine for what is it needed for, but doesn't help transition from another section. There's no buildup or interest, just factual information about English as an academic discipline.

What is an Anglicist?? I had to Google that word! Not a good look for a Wikipedia article, or for readers who have never heard of that word before. Even with the definition in the sentence.

The lead section doesn't include a brief description of the other sections. There is no proper transition that makes the reader interested to keep reading.

The lead section doesn't include information not included in the article. It is also not overly detailed. It shows the right amount of information needed. It's not overly detailed; if anything, it's under detailed. There's information, but it could use more.

Content
Why is the English Literature section covered by other countries of English Literature? It's confusing for those who want to dig deeper into other countries that do English Literature. Each bullet point of literature should have its own section within English studies.

Equity gaps: This articles doesn't address equity gaps within other English literature, like African American, Jewish American literature, Australian literature, and more.

English studies at post-secondary institutions
The first paragraph is a bit redundant, when it mentions a sentence that states what the English major is, but also states a sentence "The term also can be used to describe a student who is pursuing the degree." Both sentences say the same thing.

History
The sentence favors British Literature over American literature from this sentence: "Initially, English studies comprised a wide variety of content: the practice of oratory, the study of rhetoric and grammar, the composition of poetry, and the appreciation of literature (mostly by authors from England, since American literature and language study was only added in the twentieth century)." The reference link that uses the information from that paragraph shows a book, but where in the book does it mention that mostly by authors from England, since American literature and language study was only added in the twentieth century? It would help if the link referred to the exact quote that further supports the article.

Tone and Balance
This article is neutral, but shares biased information. This article praises high school English literature courses, but not other grades, like university/college and graduate studies. There's barely any credible information that university/college, and graduate students can use.