User:EMILLS31/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women's Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835–1870

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it seemed really interesting. Since we're in a women's history class, I wanted to do something related to this topic. Seeing something so controversial and seen as anti-feminist or oppressive be said to actually be feminist is something that really caught my attention, plus it was from the recommended "C-Rated Articles," so I thought it would be good practice for seeing a lower quality article.

Lead Section Evaluation
The introduction of the article clearly explains the quintessential details of what the article is about. It manages to mention and define the main concepts of what the book is and its argument as well as key terms used to define the said argument. The lead describes briefly but thoroughly the topics in the article that are later elaborated on.

Content Evaluation
All of the article adheres strictly to content directly related to the book the article is about. The article is as up to date as I believe that it can be, as the content of the article is only taking place in a fixed period of time with facts that cannot change surrounding the book's content and initial reviews-- In addition to facts that are unlikely to change. This wiki does address women's issues and suffrage, but Mormonism is a vastly white religion that is also a branch of Christianity.

Tone and Balance Evaluation
The article seems to be on a book that isn't widely known or studied, so it's a little difficult to find out if the article is neutral. The main point of bias that stands out to be is that the "Critical Reception" conception doesn't seem to address any negative reviews. It does capture the nuance in the review by Dr. Bennion where he criticizes what he believes to be an inaccuracy in the book, but this is still considered a positive review as he praises Ulrich before and after. The book is making a nuanced and controversial claim, so it is hard for me to believe that there were absolutely no negative reaction to this book. I also think that the sentence "Many also describe the book as being enjoyable as well as educational." is unnecessarily biased. The author of this sentence did provide citation for saying this, but it's vague nature and the fact that it doesn't even mention the people who said it was enjoyable leads me to believe that this sentence is included to give a reader trying to get the "gist" the takeaway that this is a great book. Which is biased.

The article makes no mention of how this book serves a point that is widely unagreed with by people who would call themselves modern feminists, as polygamy is seen as oppressive and objectification by most critics of religion and polygamy  beyond feminists. It also doesn't mention anything about polygamy in American Christianity (which is the focus of the book) being extremely fringe and has been denounced by modern Mormon churches as an oppressive and unnecessary part of their past. The article also mentions that Ulrich wrote this because she grew up on pioneer stories, which are usually biased tales of American grandeur during westward expansion.

Additionally, while Ulrich has coined viral phrases, created The Midwife's Tale, and is a well-known historian, it should also be noted in this article that the author herself identifies as Mormon. Many of the sources also are from BYU, a known religious University that has a large Mormon population. I think it should be said that all of these people have personal cause to paint Mormonism in a better light than the fringe population that they're usually seen as by those outside of Utah and Mormon communities.

Sources and References
While I'm not sure how sources could be bettered for this particular of article due to it's niche topics and citations, it should be stated that nearly all of the sources are opinion pieces or secondary sources and every person referenced is white. Additionally, one of the sources is for the History channel, who's reputation is in question as of the past decade due to their focus on conspiracy theories and relatively right wing rhetoric used in some programs on the channel.

Organization and Writing Quality Evaluation
The article is written in correct syntax in words and phrases that are easy to understand for a general audience. Concepts mentioned in the article are also adequately explained.

Images and Media Evaluation
There are no images in this article. It could definitely use an image of the book and author.

Talk Page Discussion Evaluation
There has only been one or two corrections to this article in it's existence, as far as I can tell. It was corrected by the original author when the issue was pointed out by another editor. Something very interesting is that some of the edits made are by a user being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia pages.

Overall Impressions Evaluation
The article is given a C rating by Wiki, which is understandable considering all the things pointed out and considering I felt like I was unraveling a pro-Mormon BYU conspiracy while trying to dissect this article. The article is particularly strong in the description of the book's content, but needs more elaboration around the context of the concepts portrayed in the book and the book's conception, as well as how the book focuses on an unpopular narrative. I think it's strong in it's execution of making an academic writing's ideas accessible, but I think it has plenty of room to branch out directly from the content of the book without straying too far from focus.