User:Fluffpups/Evaluate an Article

User:Fluffpups/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feminist rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I believe when discussing and thinking about communication, it is important to consider it from a feminist lens and with the ideology of inclusion and equality. Also, the article initially appears to meet the content of a good Wikipedia article.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The article begins with an introductory sentence which does clearly describe the subject of Feminist rhetoric but could be a bit more tailored to the article's topic. The lead section does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article's major sections. The lead is concise but could focus a bit more on the general overview of the article.

Content:

The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content offers a decent history of the topic but could expand further into the recent discourse on Feminist rhetoric. There is no content that doesn't belong in the article. The article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance:

The article remains neutral and doesn't have heavily biased claims. It does not attempt to persuade the reader but just states facts about the topic.

Sources and References:

All the facts in the article are backed up by secondary sources and cited. There are several sources and they reflect the available literature of the topic. The sources range from the 1990’s - 2020 (I believe the study of feminist rhetoric began in the 1980’s so the sources are spanning almost the entire topics duration.) The sources appear to be written by a spectrum of authors and do include historically marginalized individuals. The majority of sources are from journals not random websites. I checked several links and the link to the corresponding publications.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is writing quality is okay. The majority of it is easy to understand and follow. There are a few sentences that are a bit wordy and could be clarified. Sometimes terminology is used throughout the article where a definition could be useful to add clarification to the content. The article does not have spelling mistakes. The articles content and organization of sections makes sense for the reader to gain an understanding of the topic.

Images and Media:

The article only includes two images. Both are relevant to the topic, well-captioned, and follow Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. They are laid out in an appealing way. My only thought is that there could be more images throughout the article.

Talk page discussion:

The articles talk page has a very short conversation. It is just a handful of comments mostly about contributors who were working on the article for a college class. The article is rated as a C-Class article and is part of WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Writing.

Overall impressions:

The article has an okay status. I think the strengths of the article are its discussion of a topic that doesn’t get a lot of coverage and works to raise awareness of the topic. The article could be improved in its writing and ease of understanding for the reader. I think the article is slightly underdeveloped.