User:Maddie Jae/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Queer ecology

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.)

I chose this article because it is a topic I have some knowledge of, but no personal connection to, and therefore will be able to provide an unbiased analysis. This topic matters because it is one that most people would have little to no knowledge of, but is linked to topics like queer theory, which is often used in analysis of literary works. My preliminary impression of this article is that it is well-written and a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. It seems to be unbiased and factual, but I will have to look further into that in my evaluation.

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.)

The lead section had a clear definition of queer theory that could be found in the first sentence, as well as other details that allow the reader to understand the topic. The overview section is perhaps a tad bit overly detailed, with pieces of information that would be better suited for other parts of the article, where they could go into more detail. The article checks all of the content boxes. The content is relevant, unbiased, factual, and up to date. It also addresses Wikipedia's equity gaps, and provides information related to previously underrepresented topics/people. The article is neutral, focusing on the history of queer ecology and information on the topic's definition and use. There are no claims, argumentative statements, or stances taken by the author in this article. It is purely informational and provides information on a view, rather than convincing readers to subscribe to that view. There are many, many sources for this article, proving that the author did their research and backed up their information with sources. However, there are some areas that have little or no citing in them.The information seems up to date and viable, and I could not find other sources besides the ones found in the article. The article is well-written and organized. There are no images present in the article. However, the article is about a concept, so I could not find any relevant pictures for the topic. This article is a C-class article for many WikiProjects, but is of low importance to all except LGBT studies and visual arts. Overall, this was a fairly good article, with perhaps a few details that could be moved around, but none that are extremely vital.