User:Grackling/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Queer ecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am fascinated by the topic, having never heard of it, but I was also surprised by its lack of a front page image.

Evaluate the article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * It would be useful to have a front image to center the topic. The synopsis is well constructed and brief, but it is a bit confusing compared with the "Overview," which is long and cumbersome to get through. These paragraphs could probably be condensed, with parts of it merged with the overly short synopsis. The structure is unintuitive: "Definition" comes after "Overview," so there is no context for understanding the Overview.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * My main qualms were structural: information seems largely up-to-date, including sources from the past few years. It would be useful to note how this information has been applied in ecology, as the name "Queer Ecology" assumes it is environmental in focus, yet the article is exclusively philosophical. If that is so, then "Queer Ecology" should be clarified as a philosophy.
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * The article is Eurocentric, perhaps due to the origins of the term "Queer Ecology." It could be worth evaluating Queer Ecology in non-Eurocentric terms, if there are LBGQT+ spaces in the non-Western world that have applied or contributed to these ideas. If not, it would be worth noting the field's Eurocentric nature.
 * What else could be improved?
 * Note above.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The tone is neutral and effectively gives voice to different queer perspectives on the topic.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Non-Western perspectives are absent, and critical responses outside and within the LBGQT+ community are ignored.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The links largely work (for online sources, at least), and the claims mentioned within support the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * They are reliable sources, though the bias rests largely in the topic's decisively academic focus: there is little to no contribution outside academia.
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
 * Fairly: there are contributions from Orion Magazine, along with scholarly journals and books, but the media are again limited to the academic sphere.
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There was an undue emphasis on "fringe" theory within the otherwise fringe philosophy. S5lewis13 notes the scattered yet well-written nature of the article and urges more recent sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It belongs to several WikiProjects but is rated of low importance and C-Class in all cases.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This topic has not come up in class, but if it has, the focus is so philosophical in nature to, in effect, not have any useful basis for the environment (i.e., no application beyond theory has come from it).