User:EmilyVisco/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Legal recognition of non-binary gender
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. --> This article discusses a topic relevant to our course (non-binary gender and its legal recognition) and seems very reputable and informative.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead is concise and provides a decent amount of context for the entire article. The introductory sentences are descriptive but not verbose. My only negative comment is one sentence says "may have been" which does not feel like the author of the text is confident in their source information or it is not reputable. It also uses a lot of parentheticals which is necessary because it is talking so generally about a number of places, but makes the flow of reading more difficult.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article content is up-to-date, with information from as recently as 2019. The content is all relevant to the topic and there doesn't appear to be anything that is missing.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article has some questions phrasing, such as before when it said "may have been" or in the section about Germany in which it is "is thought to be." The article is neutral and does not attempt to persuade the reader, nor does it appear to be heavily biased or have viewpoints that are over or under represented.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

For the most part, there is a wealth of sources (with links that do work). My only concern is the comments like "is thought to be" that feel they are lacking support from sources. Overall, however, the sources are current and thorough. Many appear to be reliable news stories that come from the different countries discussed throughout the article.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well organized, being split into sections based on countries (and organized in alphabetical order). It doesn't have errors that I can find.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article contains informative images (like the map in the United States section that shows the breakdown of legality by state) that are also well-captioned and visually appealing.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This is a C-Class article. It is a part of two WikiProjects, Gender Studies (of which it is "low importance") and LGBT studies. A lot of the conversation on the page is about situations in the United States, such as correcting errors (like saying Oregon was the first state to recognize non-binary as a gender on driver's licenses when it was actually Arkansas) or suggesting a map should be made of the states (which was made and is very helpful). These conversations are fairly short and fairly fact based, whereas in class we talk about subjects like these in a more analytical lens.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, I think this is a strong article that has a good wealth of current information. It will need to be continuously monitored as new legislations surrounding this topic are passed. I think the article could improve some of its phrasing, as mentioned previously, to be less ambiguous. That being said, overall I think this is a relatively complete and successful article.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback:Talk:Legal recognition of non-binary gender