User:Laurencraven/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because I feel it is the one I could find that relates to the topics of my course the best. This article matters because it is providing information on topics of gender and LGBTQ issues not only in one area but in countries all over the world. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was just on gender studies in America but the article also includes around 6 other countries and areas to look at gender studies in.

Evaluate the article
The article's lead section is well done in that it defines the topic and provides a clear overview. It includes a brief description of the articles major sections but it does include some seemingly unnecessary information for the introduction like a quote from Simone de Beauvoir that seems like it should be later in the article. In terms of content, the article is somewhat up to date and the content is all relevant to the topic but it needs more context so people can read the article without having to know anything about the topic beforehand. It also represents a historically underrepresented population. The tone is pretty neutral as it describes different reliable points of view but does not side with one or the other and I don't feel as though it is attempting to sway me in any way. From the sources I looked at the links seem to work and they look like a wide range of reliable sources but some of them are just other Wikipedia articles. The facts in the article are all backed up by sources but most of them are not super current although they were more current at the time the article was written. But seeing as it has been updated this week, perhaps some changes should be made. I think for the most part the article is well written and organized in a very readable way. There is only one picture in this article but it seems to be cited correctly although I feel this picture is not important or helpful enough to be the only one on the page. The talk page has some good discussions the author seems to have taken some of the suggestions in and changed the article. Some of them are small edits but the biggest one like an unnecessary section was taken out but another big issue regarding the overall readability of the article was not fully addressed. A specific example was given and the author was told it need context but did not change it. Overall, I think the article is pretty well-done for someone wanting a general overview of the subject, but it is lacking in some context and more flow in some parts.