User:Erik Blair/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Liberal feminism

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 it is related to the course topic, it matters because it's important to understand a common form of feminism when studying women in International relations, I thought the article was pretty informative

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
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead has a lot of detail

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? I couldn't find any information that is out of date, and it looks like the website is updated regularly
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that doesn't belong the only missing content I could find was a missing citation link under the Mary Wollstonecraft section
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic as a whole covers liberal feminism but it also mentions critiques of liberal feminism from marginalized women

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes apart from the section that still has a citation needed link
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) This article uses many academic sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes There is a grammatical error in the first sentence of the third paragraph under History: Historically, liberal feminism, also called "bourgeois feminism", was mainly contrasted with the working-class or "proletarian" women's movements, that eventually developed into called socialist and Marxist feminism.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

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

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversation focuses on how maybe an article introducing the reading to liberal feminism shouldn't focus so heavily on it's criticism, it also criticizes the article for being American centric
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a start-class and it is apart of WikiProjects politics and WikiProjects feminism
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The Wiki discussion is intensely focused on presenting the topic in a neutral way, while bias is something we focus on in class it is not something we focus on to this degree

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? I think the article is very informative overall
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a lot of detail
 * How can the article be improved? By adding more information about liberal feminism in countries other than the US
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is developing well but it needs more work