User:Melyle/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.


 * Name of article: (Queer of Color Critique)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I wanted to do this page because I’m in another class that is heavily focused on queer theory but lacks a race analysis. I think this page is off to a good start, but much is missing from the content. It is important for readers to understand all of the contributors to the queer of color critique.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you
 * I think the article tries to bring in a lot of different perspectives but fails to connect the dots. The section on queerness and indigenous culture seemed to be distracting though I think there are many Native contributions to queer theory that should be centered in the article. I would like "of color" to be broken down into different sections. What does that mean? How does race and ethnicity and culture intersect with queerness?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I don't think this information is out of date, but there is recent (and not-so-recent) scholarship that needs to be included. Audre Lorde, Cherie Moraga, Cathy Cohen, Sami Shalk, Kai Green
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * Younger writers, trans writers are missing in this piece
 * What else could be improved?
 * Adding a section on the work that trans and queer people of color are doing in the field of academia and organizing


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it needs a breakdown of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, mentions Barabara Smith and Combahee River Collective Statement but does not go into detail on what this statement does
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say it is too concise.

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?
 * Queer of color critique asks the question: what is queer about queer theory? And thus, moves queer theory away from it's exclusive focus on sexuality (similar to the lesbian separatism movement) and provides a more intersectional framework in which we can analyze power dynamics.
 * Queer of color critique incorporates ideas about migration, the nation state and performance theories and the erotic. In recent scholarship, authors challenge the critique itself in its North American focus asking: how can we create a critique that is truly international and not centered around western/North American research and voices?
 * There is a gap in examples of organizations and activism that is grounded in queer of color critique, especially in the global south (i.e the Transgender Law Center, the Audre Lorde Project, Silvia Rivera Law Project
 * The Practice of queer of color critique through performance: Spirit House, Southern Fried Queer Pride, Land Justice, housing justice work (NOLA- House of Tulip)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? No because it isn't comprehensive
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints underrepresented: trans people, young people, Black feminists, organizers
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there is much missing. While "Further Reading" section is comprehensive, there should be summaries
 * Are the sources current? No.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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? No, but it is very sporadic and there doesn't seem to be a clear progression of thoughts.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations yet
 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Incomplete
 * What are the article's strengths? Introduction sentence.
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more content to the sections and diversifying the sections
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped

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: