User:Exoticgiraffe/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Gynophobia: Gynophobia
 * I chose this article because it is something that I have never heard of before and I thought it would be something interesting to research.

Lead evaluation
The Lead definitely includes a short introductory sentence. It explains what the article will be about and some common misconceptions about the word "Gynophobia". The Lead also includes a "contents" section where it has links to the subheadings of the page. I do not know if this sounds for a "brief description", though. I do not believe the Lead includes information that is not present in the article. It is extremely concise and a quick read.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content of the page is definitely relevant to this topic. There is clearly not a lot of information on this page, but it is because of the lack of research in the area and the rarity of the phobia. The content seems to be as up to date as it can be based on the lack of research. The content on the page all belongs.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, the article is neutral. It is mostly an informational page as opposed to a controversial topic. The claims were not biased towards any particular position since there is really no position to take on this topic. There were no viewpoints necessarily. The author did include a history section which gave an objective viewpoint of the past of the phobia. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
I believe that the facts presented in the article were backed by reliable sources. The article even includes a quote from a historical text. The sources are thorough, but they are old. The most current source is from 2014. The links do work, but some of them are for solely the definition of a word. There is a definite need for more sources to become reliable, though.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is easy to read. There were only two sections, so it was a clear and quick read. There were no glaring errors that I found on the page. It was well organized and the subsections explained the broad topic well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article does not include any images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations being had on the talk page of this article were mostly about people wondering if there were any related phobias and more information to add to the article. The article is rated "stub-class" and low importance. It is a part of several WikiProjects including psychology, gender studies, sexology and sexuality, women's history, and women.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article needs work. If several more sources and sub sections were added, I think this article could become reliable. The strength of the article was the concise nature. It was extremely easy to read and interesting. I think that this article is definitely underdeveloped, but can become a great informational page.

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: