User:J.camSP23/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because of its connection to my Gender and Politics course, which seeks to engender the study of politics and to understand women as politically significant categories. This article is particularly important because it highlights gender studies in relation to its modern conception, its history, and its critics.

My preliminary impression of the article is that it is well-written, though its structure could benefit from a more precise flow of ideas. It employs a healthy use of citations, which tells me that the information presented is likely to be supported by outside sources. Finally, its introduction of gender studies in different countries that criticize this field of scholarship helps visualize the current geographic reach of this field – although it would have also been pleasant to receive examples of countries who are known champions of the field.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article is very well-constructed. Its introductory sentence is concise and lucidly terms gender studies, providing a definition that encapsulates the basic of the field. Furthermore, ideas about its application are given, emphasizing the many fields that supplement the study of gender. In doing so, the article also brings to light the many theorists that have, in one way or another, shaped the interdisciplinary field of gender studies.

In terms of content, the article does an excellent job of incorporating information pertinent to gender studies. Its use of up-to-date material is particularly noticeable, with many recent developments affecting gender studies being noted in writing, such as the Taliban takeover of the Afghan government. Moreover, the article delivers ample space for the thoughts of women in the field to be expressed, using numerous women's theories and ideas to produce a detailed account of the field.

While the article does invest a noticeable amount of capital into weighting the works of women in the field – such as by devoting a brief section to Judith Butler, a foundational agent in the theory of gender performativity – the article does seem to invest a significant bulk of its writing noting the many criticisms faced by the field. In particular, the article highlights countries that have taken political action against gender studies while actively ignoring those who have championed the field, creating a lack of balance in the intellectual narrative.

The sources used in the article strike a good balance between staples of the field and newer writings. Many of the texts used were written by women, a notably marginalized community across different periods, and academic journals and other reputable works often supplemented these. After reviewing several of the linked citations, I also found all of the ones I visited to be functioning.

This article could have benefited from a better structure. At times, it was difficult to discern how a subsection connected to other subsections within the same main segment. Additionally, while the writing was overall coherent, there were instances where long quotations were included when a paraphrased version of the text would have better suited the clarity and fluidity of the writing. I also made a note of the fact that only one image was used in the article. The introduction of other images, however, would not have likely “enhanced” the article.

The Talk page includes several dialogues between Wikipedians, noting potential bias and minor grammatical errors. It appears to be a productive space of intellectual exchanges.

Overall, I found the article to be informative. Its greatest strengths can be found in its lead section and its work of shedding light on prominent women in the field. It could, however, benefit from a revision of quoted texts and its current organizational order. Furthermore, it could also benefit from the addition of supporters for studying the field since critics of the field are already present.