User:Houmony/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender studies

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 the article, "Gender Studies" because it is related to my UW course about Feminism. My thought process was to learn about what gender studies focuses on and what job placements a person could receive by majoring in such a discipline. This topic is important in order to moving our societies towards the goal of gendered identity and representation in our daily everyday lives. My preliminary impression of the article was that it would be straightforward in the sense that the article would help the reader by breaking down the big ideas generated around gender studies and representation.

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 is well written. It includes a concise first sentences that does a good job at summarizing what the whole article is about. The first paragraph builds off of the first sentence and delves in deeper introducing the topic. Moreover, the lead section as a whole is well written in the sense of hooking the reader to what, why, how, when, and where of Gender Studies.

Content - As for content, I believe the article lacks in talking more about women's studies, and rather focused more about men's studies. Furthermore, I think the article lacked in mentioning more government attitudes. I feel as if having the input of only four countries, when there are 194 countries in the world is not neutral enough. Besides those two points, the articles content seems hefty and up to date with current societal expectations.

Tone & Balance - Moving on to tone & balance, reading this article felt more like persuasion than an information session. It felts as if the writer is trying to get the reader to approve of such topics and therefore publicize it further amongst communities.

Sources & References - Regarding sources, this article does a great job at citing their evidence and giving credit to authors. The sources are current & relevant, and the links work.

Organization & Writing quality - When it comes to writing quality, this article is very difficult at times. For example, "Bracha L. Ettinger transformed subjectivity in contemporary psychoanalysis since the early 1990s with the Matrixial feminine-maternal and prematernal Eros of borderlinking (bordureliance), borderspacing (bordurespacement) and co-emergence. The matrixial feminine difference defines a particular gaze and it is a source for trans-subjectivity and transjectivity in both males and females. Ettinger rethinks the human subject as informed by the archaic connectivity to the maternal and proposes the idea of a Demeter-Persephone Complexity." As a reader new to the topic, I could barely understand anything mentioned in that paragraph. Besides the complex used at times throughout the article, I do feel like the article is organized when it comes to orderly sections.

Images & Media - Meanwhile, unfortunately there are not any pictures or media shown in this article but one. And that one image is very small with very minimal information.

Talk page discussion - When it comes to the talk page discussion, I find a lot of people pointing out many flaws the article encompasses. Not many people compliment or encourage the writers, instead they criticize. If I was the writer for the article I would've been demotivated to go back and fix any errors after reading the feedback. Nonetheless, the article is rated a C-class and level-5 vital article.

Overall impression - Overall, the article seems to be well written and have a lot of time put into the making. However I do wish some of the language used in the article was broken down a little more for the laymen to understand.