User:Lilyparks/Evaluate an Article

A. I am evaluating the article titled "Feminist Rhetoric"

B. I chose to evaluate this article because I find feminist rhetoric to be an interesting topic

C. Evaluation:

Lead Section:

The lead of this article is good, but not great. It does a very good job at providing an introductory sentence that identifies the topic and gives a short and informing description of what feminist rhetoric is. But, this lead section lacks a description of the other sections of the article.

Content Section:

The content of this article is very good, as it covers all the important aspects of feminist rhetoric. It also seems to be very up to date. The article does discuss the history of feminist rhetoric as well as talking about all sections evenly without putting too much weight on just one.

Tone and Balance:

This article is neutral as it does not outright support or oppose feminism, but presents the facts that are necessary to understanding what it is. The article also does not attempt to persuade the reader. It does a good job at staying neutral within a topic that could easily lean one way or the other depending on the writer.

Sources and References:

This article has some first hand accounts from Bell Hooks, as well as many peer reviewed and reliable articles and journals. The links also seem to work perfectly. There were also tons of sources used meaning the writer did quite a lot of research before writing this article.

Organizing and Writing Quality:

The writing style is clear and professional. It also has sections that make sense to the general topic of the article. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media:

There are two images used in this article, one of Bell Hooks, and one of feminist rhetoric wallpaper. I think more could have been done with these. The writer could have included more images and explained more so why they included an image of wallpaper. The images are also not laid out in a visually appealing way. That being said, they have clear captions that are easy to read and understand.

Talk Page Discussion:

This article has been rated as low importance within the WikiProject feminism and in the C-Class. It was rated high however, in the WikiProject writing. There is not much of a discussion going on on the talk page.

Overall Impressions:

One of the articles strengths is that it does a very good job at explaining what feminist rhetoric is. I also think that the history section is very informative. This article could be improved by adding more and better images and by making sure to highlight what sections will be talked about in the lead section. I would rate this article as well-developed.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

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.)