User:Jureumi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because our class, LGBTQ+ Reproduction, falls under the field of gender studies. Additionally, I know that historically gender studies has excluded marginalized groups, such as people of color, and as such the article may benefit from updating to include more historically marginalized viewpoints.

Evaluate the article
The lead section's introductory sentence is concise and accurate, with the rest of the paragraph giving a longer description that briefly previews the history of gender studies and how it has evolved in contemporary times. The next paragraph provides more context on different angles gender studies can be looked at and introduces the key topic of intersectionality. The lead section also introduces one of the key ideas necessary for understanding gender studies, which is the difference between gender and sex and idea of gender as a practice, while also acknowledging that this view is not universal. The lead section also previews the next section, which is discussion of psychoanalytic theory.

In terms of content, some sections, such as the paragraph discussing Bracha L. Ettinger, feel dense to read and may benefit from more hyperlinks to articles explaining either the theory or the jargon being used (ie. trans-subjectivity, transjectivity, and Demeter-Persephone Complexity aren't really in the common reader's lexicon). However, overall the article does well to provide different viewpoints on each topic, offering perspectives from different psychologists or other such speaker's, for example the discussion of post-modern influence examines the divide between feminists and queer theorists.

The section discussing the history of gender studies may benefit from citing more specific studies or individuals that helped popularize the field. It may also benefit from discussing the role people of color, especially Black women, have contributed to the field in the West. These contributions could also be in their own section, but as it stands, the article lacks reference to this marginalized group.

The discussion of gender in Asia and Polynesia are helpful additions to understanding the framework of gender studies, as it introduces the ideas of third-gender categories, but it does feel a little out of place as the only culture-specific discussion of gender studies in the article. This could be remedied by adding similar overviews of gender studies in other cultures and areas as well.

The section on Judith Butler's work similarly feels out of place. The information could be made more concise and added to the history section to improve the flow of reading or simply linked as further reading.

The section on criticisms of gender studies provides multiple varied opinions on the field, though as seen in the citation notes may need further citations or editing.

Finally, the section on government attitudes provides an adequate range of government views on the field without becoming redundant.

The provided sources are varied and come from a variety of different perspectives, though as noted throughout the article, some need to be reviewed for accuracy or weighting.

The talk page views this article as a level-5 vital article requiring improving. The discussion agrees with my own notes on readability, particularly the section on Bracha L. Ettinger. The discussion ranges from small things, like changing capitalizations and adding hyperlinks to other topics, to field-debates discussing gender studies versus women's studies. It seems that several years ago the article removed an entire section discussing "Importance of gender studies" to remove bias and avoid trying to self-validate the subject, which would have compromised the neutrality of the article.