User:FormallyTrainedHomunculus/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender schema theory

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was a C-Class Psychology article related to an area that I am interested and well-read in. I am relatively familiar with the current and past literature and their general pros and cons so I feel well-equipped to evaluate the article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this article is concise and brief. At first glance, I thought the lead section may be too short, but after evaluating the article, I think it is a fair length. I might suggest adding a bit more information about the subsections of the article itself into the lead, such as a brief introduction of the idea that gender schema theory posits that these roles are socially learned, as the theory itself is very process-focused, an idea that isn't well-communicated in the introduction.

The content itself is relatively thorough, but could use some work in terms of relevance and better explanations for evidence for and against the theory. While some attention is given to related concepts such as heteronormativity and sexism, there is room for improvement in including the use of Gender Schema Theory in the study of gender nonconformity and transgender individuals. The legacy section does an alright job at describing the role of the theory in modern research, but it could be expanded upon to include more information about the theory's place in sex and gender research.

The tone of the article is fairly neutral throughout, and it tends to ascribe viewpoints to individuals rather than aiming to persuade one way or another.

The sources are an area that need improvement. There are only 9 sources, and only one of which was published within the last decade. Source updates would be helpful to increase the size of the evidence and legacy sections, and may help with implementing the aforementioned suggestion to include how Gender Schema Theory is used in the study of gender-nonconforming and transgender individuals. Of note is that many of these sources are women, which is helpful in bridging the gender gap present in research, but more references and more recent studies and reviews would likely be helpful in improving the article's quality, informativeness, and credibility.

The article is fairly well organized, and follows closely in format to other articles on Social Psychology theories. As more information is added, it may be sensible to break the "Legacy" section up with a specific subsection devoted to criticisms in order to keep the discussion of scientific objection of the theory separate from the discussion of the effect of the theory on the field of gender research.

There are no images within the article. Including at least a small chart or image of child observation of parental figures would help illustrate the role of the process that the theory describes.

The Talk page seems to be somewhat small, which was a bit surprising. A point raised by the talk page that seems relevant to address is the role of sex and biology on this theory, which may be important in explaining the role a psychosocial theory has when put into context of biological processes. If properly implemented, this could be an important part of contextualizing the theory in terms of broader sex and gender research. The article is classified as mid-importance, which makes sense given that its an older theory with mixed evidence on its accuracy.

Overall, I think the article could use some work both in modernizing and expanding upon the framework that has already been established. Given that the article itself alludes a bit to the theory being less emphasized in modern research, it may be of interest to describe what sorts of theories and evidence have replaced it. Contextualizing this theory as one that is declining in importance would however necessitate many more sources that provide alternatives and evidence against the theory. While objections to the theory are included, they are only touched upon briefly, and so the article comes across as somewhat dissonant in terms of how important and relevant this theory is in today's literature.