User:Hanajohnson1/Evaluate an Article

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 to evaluate this article because the topic seemed interesting to me. I also thought it was relevant to the 21st century issues we are going through today such as equal pay.

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

The lead of this article was very well written. It gave a summary of what the article was about. It did not explicitly state the sections of the article but it gave the reader a general idea of what it is about. It does not state any information that is not in the article. I thought that it was concise and got to the point without being too short.

Content Section

The information in the article is relevant to the topic because it highlights on the history, themes, challenges, applications, and implications of feminist rhetoric. The content is up to date because it was last edited on January 30, 2023. I do not think that any information does not belong or could be taken out. It is not a super long article so I think that the author did a good job of keeping the information concise. I do not think this falls under a equity gap because it is an article about feminists.

Tone and Balance

The tone of this article is very educational. It is also very informative without being too persuasive. It is a fairly neutral standpoint since it does not make an argument. It informs the reader about feminist rhetoric and it could come off as biased because of how much it talks about it. I think that the article is fairly balanced with each section it covers.

Image and Media

This article does not do a good job of providing the reader with images. There are only 2 on the site. One is an author who has been influential for feminist rhetoric and the other is an example of a feminist rhetoric wallpaper. I don’t think these images give the reader any more information or help to create any images in their heads. The images adhere to the copyright but are not laid out in the most aesthetic way since they are just on the side.

Sources

The information in this article is all backed up by sources. I noticed that there were multiple types of sources which helps to prove the reliability of the article. There are also a lot of sources to cross-reference information on. The authors seem reliable and have unbiased opinions on their articles as well.

The Talk Page

The talk page shows multiple edits. There are mainly just changes in grammatical errors. There are also a few edits where people clarified certain definitions. Overall, there seems to be a pretty universal idea of how this should be portrayed.

Overall, this Wikipedia article did a good job of informing the reading of the subject. The lead was a strong set up for the rest of the article and provided information as to what one would be learning about. The tone was unbiased and the information was concise yet informative. I did not notice any grammatical errors or issues within the content. There were high quality sources to back up information. The talk page did not show any major disagreements which shows the universal opinion on this topic. The authors could have provided better images on the website to provide to the reader but the content was informational enough to go without.