User:Leslyn S/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Bisexual erasure
 * This is something I am knowledgeable about and am confident I can find sources about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise with an intro sentence that describes the topic very well, including multiple relevant links to other helpful articles. However, at the end, it is mentioned that bisexual representation is expanding, but then the article does not provide evidence for that.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant, but is missing female motivations of bi-erasure, pansexual/bisexual discourse, etc.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The articles seems to be very neutral, but it also pushes forward a very binaric mode of thinking about bisexuality which excludes the popular notion that bisexuality can include more than two genders or sexes.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links work and facts are backed up, but I would suggest an update for the article, because there are new discourses and sources available that would help to better develop the page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Organization evaluation
Great organization. The article is easy to read without any errors and the sections that are available make sense.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
While at first glance, the article could use some more images, it becomes clear that bi-erasure is a topic that does not need pictures to help develop any concepts. The bisexual flag is enough.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Because many people identify with or as bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, etc., there are some standout discussions about PoV that come across as themselves being biased or from feeling offended. Of course, bias is natural, but the page could use more perspectives and sources.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is good on a base level. However, having an in-depth knowledge that I think I have, there could be some updating and adjustments based on the issues I previously brought up.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: