User:Emmateabout/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feminist rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I have always had a passion for social justice, especially as it pertains to women. Learning about women's history is something of great interest to me. This is a topic that is not only extremely relevant to me, but also society today. I am under the impression that this article will cover women’s influence in the world both in the past and currently.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

Overall, this article has a good lead section. The introductory sentence is clear and allows the reader to understand what is to come in the rest of the article. Additionally, this section does not include any information that is not mentioned in the article. It does heavily emphasize the meaning behind feminist rhetoric, which is useful, however it could define each section of the article more clearly. With that, the lead section is very detailed, but only in the sense that it defines the title of the article. Improvement of this section could be done by cutting down on the definition of feminist rhetoric and adding more about each section of the article.

Content

The content of this article is relevant to the topic and sections are organized in a cohesive manner. The content is also up to date and does not need to be changed in regards to adding or taking information away. All content included supports the main theme of the article of feminist rhetoric in our society. This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as it presents information about women and includes intersectionality through race and ethnicity. However, this article addresses concerns pertaining to women and they are not portrayed in an unfair manner. Womens' influence and accomplishments in society, despite facing many challenges, are shown in a positive light that presents facts.

Tone and Balance

The tone of this article is neutral and the author refrains from vocalizing their personal opinion. In the article, female viewpoints occur the most often yet they are accurate. In addition to this, one of the sources used mention that it is difficult to find perspectives of diverse women on this topic. Although this article represents various viewpoints of women, it does not attempt to persuade reader's to pick a certain side.

Sources and References

There are plenty of sources and references used in this article that coincide with the topic. Many of the sources are current, and there are also a few sources that are not as current. However, the sources that are not as current are used to evaluate history. All links to references are functioning and there is a wide variety of authors listed. The sources listed include books, articles, and journals which are all great options.

Organization and Writing Quality

This article is well organized by sections that reflect relevant topics and is an easy reading for the most part. Grammatically, there are some run on sentences that get slightly confusing to follow along with. Additionally, this article could be improved with the use of more transition sentences, particularly in the definitions and goals section.

Images and Media

This article includes two images that both follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Captions for both images differ greatly, as the first image caption is not quite as detailed as the second. The first caption does not contain punctuation, and is not detailed enough for readers to understand its importance. However, the second caption explains exactly what the reader is looking at. The images are displayed in an appealing manner as they are off to the side and do not distract the readers or interfere with the text.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is part of WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Writing. In both of these categories, the article was rated as a C-Class on the projects quality scale. Additionally, for WikiProject Feminism the article was rated as low importance, whereas it was rated as high importance for WikiProject Writing. In the talk page, users can be seen suggesting ways to better organize this article. One person suggested moving a section to a different place, and one other user agreed with them. However, these changes have not been made and conversation did not carry on after those two users agreed that the section should be moved. The main difference seen in this article from what we have discussed in class is the lead section.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the article is good, but could use some improvements. For example, the lead section should introduce each section of the article. This is especially important because the article does have quite a few sections. Sentences should be shortened even if they include semicolons. Many sentences in the article are long, which can be hard to follow as one sentence contains many different topics. A strength of this article is that it is very informative and truly focuses on facts. It is on the cusp of being a well-developed article. If suggested changes are made, this article will improve.