User:Lightnessofbeing23/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Wikipedia article on the Equal Rights Amendment.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is an important legal and political movement for women's rights in the United States. Although it was initially introduced in the 1920s, discussion regarding the ERA continues today. This could lead to controversial edits in the article and perhaps misinformation. I wanted to take a closer look at this article to see how both historical and evolving information are conveyed on the platform.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The opening of the lead section clearly and concisely conveys the purpose of the Equal Rights Amendment as well as when and by whom it was first introduced. The rest of the lead section gives a brief history of its near-passage in Congress during the 1970s and how it ultimately failed. Through this summary, the authors outline the major sections of the article and highlight important points in the history of the ERA's journey through Congress. The only issue I can identify in the lead section is that there is no citation for the fact that five state legislatures voted to revoke their ERA ratifications. I feel like this is integral information and links to primary sources would greatly enhance this section. Overall, I thought this was a good lead section that would give anyone a great overview on the subject.

Content


 * This content of the article is extremely detailed and does a great job at summarizing the major historical events and perspectives on the Equal Rights Amendment. I noticed that some citations were missing in places where they definitely should appear. For example, the article quotes President Eisenhower but fails to cite where this quote comes from. The article goes into further detail regarding the state revocations of the ERA that was mentioned in the lead section. Here, the authors do make sure to cite their sources which means that they probably could (or should) be integrated into the lead section for those who are not interested in reading the entire article. I found that the authors of this article went to great lengths to make sure that the legislative history of the ERA was extensively detailed. Moreover, all of the content seems to be up to date as even developments as of 2022 are included. As for diversity of information, I think there is a good foundation but could do with more perspectives from marginalized groups. The only groups I was able to clearly identify perspectives from were those in support, those against, and Black Americans. I think outlining the perspectives of other groups that could potentially be affected by the ERA would create a more detailed picture of the subject.

Tone and Balance


 * I thought the article balanced its tone perfectly. The majority of the article focuses on recounting the attempts to pass the ERA in both state and federal legislatures through fact-based summary. Overall, I thought the authors were able to provide information on a variety of perspectives and legislative appeals without co-signing one over another.

Sources and References


 * The sources linked throughout the ERA Wikipedia page seem to be fair, reputable, and well-written. Though there are some parts of the article that still need citations, it seems like the writers of the page are aware of these issues and have flagged them with the "[citation needed]" label. Moreover, the citations are either recent or timely to the era in which they discuss. I tried a couple of links and they all worked out. In general, this article is very well-sourced and only needs some minor fixes.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * I found no notable issues with either the organization or writing quality of the article. I thought all of the information was well-chronicled and easy to understand.

Images and Media


 * All of the images included within the article help the reader to better visualize key figures in the movement. Additionally, one user created a map of the United States that aids readers in understanding how the ERA was received by each state. All of this media adheres to Wikipedia's copyright restrictions and are well-captioned.

Talk Page Discussion


 * Suprisingly, the ERA's talk page is relatively bare. The only comment on the page was left last year regarding further discussion of the ERA in the West Virginia State Senate around that time. The article current has a C-Class rating, meaning that it still needs to be cleaned up and/or contain better citations. Moreover, it is part of a variety of WikiProjects concerning feminism and United States politics. Seeing how an article on such an important subject needs so much work and there aren't many people dedicated to it makes me want to contribute to its development.

Overall Impressions


 * Overall, I thought this article was fairly well-written and contained a lot of important social and historical information regarding the ERA. However, with a deeper analysis it is clear that the article does need to be cleaned up in some areas and better researched. This has inspired me to do further research on the subject and contribute to making the article better for the common reader.