User:JayJay.408/Evaluate an Article

General

 * Name of article: (link) Bisexuality
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose to evaluate this article because it is related to my final research paper topic which is bisexual erasure.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but I feel like the wording of it could be improved.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, pansexuality is mentioned in the lead
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes, perhaps can be worded better to be short and clear

Lead evaluation
I think overall it has the right information but in the lead they also mention pansexuality which I believe is a separate topic so I do not think it belong there.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that it does not belong but the content on "among other animals" is shorter than the rest of the information on each section so perhaps more in depth research can be added to this section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps in regards to sexual orientation. Because they belong to LGBTQ+ community yes it does address topics related historically underrepresented population. Even more so as bisexuals because the existence of their sexual orientation is questioned by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Content evaluation
Overall, there is a lot of good information in this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? underrepresented: mental health of bisexuals
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone and balance of the article seems to be informative opposed to forceful.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? some are more current than others
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources I looked through seemed to all be reliable, there was an attempt to make changes on the talk page that was denied because they were trying to source from a blog post.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes for the most part
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
Some sections are worded better than other ones but overall the article is concise.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes it does
 * Are images well-captioned? yes they are
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes they do all but one are part of the public domain and the one that is not (picture of Angelina Jolie) is cc by 2.0.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes all are positioned to the right side of the screen

Images and media evaluation
I think it was helpful to have all the images to the right side of the page because they were not a distraction when I was reading the whole article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There was one conversation of updating a reference with a most recent edition and another big section were a user tries to have multiple edits done on wording of the content (some of which are sourced from blog post so some edits were denied)
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a B-class article and is part of WikiProject: Sociology, WikiProject: Sexology and Sexuality, WikiProject: LGBT Studies and WikiProject: Philosophy.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? One way is that we have approached sexual desire and the erotic differently than from this article.

Talk page evaluation
There could be more engagement in the talk page about how this article can improved.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a lot of good information
 * How can the article be improved? I think the sections could have more research done on it and the wording can be improved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Developed but with it needing some more work done on it

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article filled with a lot of detailed information about bisexuality.