User:Malexakiss/Evaluate an Article

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

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.)

Feminist rhetoric is the article I chose because it has to do with the course that I am currently in. Feminist Rhetoric is something that is prominent in Communication Theory, the course this assignment is for, although it is rarely named even though its concepts and ideas are used in many theories. This article and topic matter because the whole concept of Feminist Rhetoric is not just feminism, it's about the principles of everything that feminism stands for. The article initially looked a little intimidating to me because I felt that it would be a hard read just due to language, however it was a decently easy read as well as insightful into the Feminist Rhetoric. One thing I especially enjoyed was the purple chart in the sources area that had links you could click for everything included in the article by section. For example, there is a link to Embedded Feminist in the Concepts section that you could then again find at the bottom in this purple chart.

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 does in fact include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The sentence used gives a simple explanation as to what feminism is and that the article uses it with the practice of rhetoric. The section overall does a decent job at discussing the layout of the article, most of the key topics were discussed in the Lead section hold one or two topics. The only thing to add might be some more of the content area discussed in the Lead section, such as maybe touching on the applications and implications or other pieces from the Contents area. There is nothing included in the Lead section, from what I could tell, that was not present in the article. The Lead overall was concise, orderly, and had just enough detail and concept definition for it to be interesting yet not over saturated.

The Content section is all relevant to the article and lays everything out in an easily understandable manor. The content is all up to date, and all of the headings match the Contents section. There are three names within the History and Definitions and Goals sections that mark as red because the links to those pages expired or were removed. Those links would need to be updated or the names should be put back to having no link in order for this issue to be resolved. This article does deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, it discusses everything to do with the gap in education, the workplace, etc. in terms of women. It discusses topics relating to women of all sorts being historically underrepresented, such as women of many nationalities, religions, and cultural backgrounds.

The article itself is neutral and only presents facts and insights from scholars. I did not seem to find any claims that were heavily biased for any particular position. This article for the most part does not have any view points per-say, it's mostly about the facts and giving explanations for everything. There are many fringe viewpoints described accurately within this article, some examples of such would be Black women and Transgender women. The article discusses them in different sections about how certain parts of Feminist Rhetoric are applied to each. There is no attempt of persuasion within the article mainly because there is no bias, if there was things would be different.

The references section is expansive and has everything backed up by verifiable sources. Sources that are featured are all available within the References section and throughout the article. There are many links within every paragraph and all are available at the bottom for viewing. Not all of the sources are current, however the majority of them are up to par. There are a few links and sources within the article that are no longer available and need to be updated. The article is concise, clear, and easy to read without grammatical or spelling errors. All sections go with what is stated in the Contents section, and everything goes concisely content wise with that.

Within the article there are only two images, one of writer Bell Hooks and the other of a Feminist Rhetoric poster. These are images that went well with the article as a whole, although it would be a nice touch to add a picture or two more to supplement with the text. All images adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and were sited correctly. There was minimal conversation on the talk page, mostly it was chatter about the formatting of the article. The article was initially rated as "start" and was nominated for deletion, however now it's "featured" and is an important WikiWriting project. The article's overall status is a C-Class with High-Importance, its strengths are content and formation of information. The article can be improved by adding more supplementary images and including a bit more in the Lead area in terms of mapping out the article. Overall the article is well-developed with an excellent structure, it is a good read with lots of essential information.