User:Lautb/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sheng nu

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because this is one of the ideas I had for my Wikipedia project. This entry is important because it has become a popular term in China and reflects the cultural expectations placed on women in contemporary Chinese society. My preliminary impression of the entry was that it was very comprehensive and provided solid context for the whole movement.

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

I think the lead section provided a clear, concise description of the term, including controversies surrounding the term and the male equivalent. For the most part, it touched on the major sections of the article (except for the 'in other cultures' section).

Content

There were some areas that were not up to date ("By 2020, China is expected to have 24 million more men than women. The global average is 103 males to 107 females."), and some of the divorce rates and statistics from other countries were from several years ago. That being said, the article provides a lot of content and really contextualizes the term by discussing cultural attitudes, media portrayal, and public reactions.

Tone and Balance

The article is generally neutral and provides a balanced discussion of both the negative connotations and positive reclamation of the term.

Sources and References

The article draws on many sources which support claims made in the article. Many of the sources are Western media outlets (Bloomberg, Newsweek etc.) which may be slightly biased.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-written, free of basic writing errors, and broken up into useful subsections.

Images and Media

The article does not contain many images and the images do not seem that relevant (mostly images of people that are only tangentially related to the term). The images are captioned appropriately.

Overall Impressions

I think this is a strong wikipedia entry overall, as the content is very comprehensive and it draws on a wide range of sources to support its claims. Area of improvement include updating statistics and sources so they are more relevant and choosing more appropriate images.