User:Ivy&Fern2003/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Kimberlé Crenshaw

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 this article because we just read a piece by Crenshaw in class and I think he work is instrumental to gender studies, race studies, and general society as a whole. Crenshaw deserves a strong bibliography and credit for all her work and so I wanted to see what how her Wiki covered her life, and ideas. My initial impressions was while it isn't bad, there seems to be details missing as well as the description of what her intersectional theories are were quite short.

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 first sentence does give an overview of what Crenshaw is most known for however it only says that she is a scholar of critical race theory and not that she also is credited for theories on intersectionality, which some might argue has had a broader impact on society. The lead doesn't disclose what each section will be on. The lead discusses intersectional feminism and that isn't mentioned in the rest of the article. Overall, not great.

Content: the content is relevant. It's not the most up to date. The article seems to stop in 2017 and there has been a lot of conversation around Crenshaw's ideas more recently, especially around Critical Race Theory. The whole point of Crenshaw's work is that of the underrepresented and oppressed so yes the article does discuss equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: the article is relatively neutral and claims don't appear to be heavily biased.

Sources and References: two different sections of the page have a flag that sources need to be double checked so that is definitely an issue with this article. Clicking on some links in the reference page some of the links did not work so that too is an issue. Most of the sources had been retrieved in 2016 or 2017. Some of Crenshaw's actual work is included so that's helpful.

Organization and Writing Quality: its not the greatest writing. In one section the same idea is repeated almost word for word in two different paragraphs. It's not the easiest to read and it's messy. The section break down is interesting and not super clear as everything kinda blurs together.

Images and Media: the only image included is one of Crenshaw, and its not the most flattering. A link to a talk Crenshaw gave is also included though I wonder why that talk was chosen to be highlighted and not others.

Talk Section: the talk section is very interesting. There are some valid questions posed and critiques with no response. The article has not received a lot of edits though it has been rated as a level 5 vital article and is a part of a few wikiprojects.

Overall feedback: After learning about how the article is seen as important and discussed a lot of current ideas I was disappointed to see the low quality of the writing and the lack of activity on the article. A lot of work needs to be done to accurately represent Crenshaw's life, accomplishments, and ideas.

~