User:Ecp7201/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Feminist archaeology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(A C-class article related to the content of our seminar)

Evaluate the article
(Lead section: The first sentence is unbiased and gives a clear and concise overview of the topic. The lead provides an informative introduction to the topic however, it does not provide a brief description of the articles major sections. The lead does not provide any extraneous information and only includes information that is in the article.

Content: the sections which are completed provide objective information regarding that topic however, there are a good deal of headers that do not have any information. For example, Black Feminist Archaeological Contributions has no information listed. Additionally, some sections such as Feminist archaeology and the study of masculinity have very little content. As far as I can tell, the information is up to date. The article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equality gaps.

Tone and Balance: the tone is neutral. Due to the topic, most of the representation is from women thinkers meaning most of the framework's used for analyzing this topic have been created by women. This could mean that the male perspective is underrepresented however I do not know if that is because less men have published work about this topic. The article does not seem to persuade the reader towards a certain perspective.

Sources: there are multiple citations missing throughout the article, and some sections seem to rely heavily on one or two sources. The links that I tested work and direct the reader to peer edited papers published in reputable journals. However, I am not sure if all of the sources are available to all readers because some links took me to JSTOR which I do not believe is available to the public for free.

Organization and Writing: The article is well written and uses correct grammar. The article is well organized, and if the incomplete sections were filled out, the article's organization would flow well. There could also be more sections added as more information is published on this topic.

Images and Media: There are currently no images that add to the article. Image captions are not applicable as well as copyright.

Talk Page Discussion: the talk page is filled with contention. It is clear that at one point in time, the article was seen by many readers as biased. Since those comments, there have been multiple revisions to remove personal prejudice. The talk page also discusses the need for more citations from a wider array of sources. The article is rated C-class and has been appealed for removal however unsuccessfully.

Overall Impressions: The article is important and although multiple sections need to be elaborated on with greater diversity of sources, the article is well written and mostly neutral. With some more revisions to the article such as adding more citations and images, the article could be greatly improved. I would say the article is underdeveloped.)