User:Mem0207/Evaluate an Article

I am evaluating the Gender Empowerment Measure page. The content is relevant to the topic, and the tone is neutral. Claims have citations, but there is very little variety of sources. The article would benefit from a diversification of sourcing. It does tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps -- women. The talk page raises a good point about the page needing many more sections than it currently includes. I think one section that has not yet been suggested, but would strengthen the page a lot, is an "application" or "examples" section. This would include text and/or graphics that discuss or display rankings of different countries, as well as an examples of times that a country has enacted new policy in response to its rating.

I am evaluating the Women in conservatism in the United States page. I think it is too broad and vague in its description of what it is that conservative women fight for. Other than the abortion question, the article refers very vaguely to what conservative women want as opposed to liberal women or conservative men. The specific niche occupied by conservative women needs to be more clearly identified. Additionally, I think Kellyanne Conway should be discussed either in the section on Trump or the section on 21st-century conservative women. There are concerns on the talk page about neutrality in tone and not enough citing of sources, both of which could and should be addressed.

I am evaluating the Sexism in American political elections page. I think the article is in good shape in terms of the information that is currently there. However, I think it needs to be updated. For example, coverage of female presidential candidates in 2020, as well as the election of female vice president Kamala Harris, should be added. Additionally, I think adding more intersectional data and information would benefit this article. For example, in the section on supply and demand among aspirants, breaking this down by class, race, and education would be interesting and strengthen the article.

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Homonationalism article.

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 relates to international gender politics, and is a brief article on an important topic that could probably use some evaluation and revision. I have studied homonationalism in other classes, and have read the paper on which the theory originates, so I am both interested in and familiar with this topic.

My preliminary impression is that this is an overall strong foundation for an article on homonationalism. However, I think it would benefit from some expansion.

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.)

This is a overall strong article on an important and fairly recent theory. The lead is concise and clear, the content is relevant and up-to-date, the article is generally well-sourced, citations are correct, and the links work properly. I have a few suggestions, listed below:


 * Overall, the tone is mostly balanced and objective. The only biased opinions are found in quoted material. However, I would suggest dedicating some more space to the critics of the theory mentioned in the opening section.
 * I think the article would benefit from some images and media. The terrorism section could include photographs of the protests mentioned in its final paragraph. The immigration section could include a figure, table, or graph from the study it cites. These additions would add a strong visual element to the article that is currently lacking.
 * I agree with Thewikiwizard1998's comments on the Ukraine section on the Talk page. Thewikiwizard1998 suggests that additional strong sourcing would benefit this section. I think this is a great recommendation, as the section on Israel, for example, includes different theorists (Shulman, Mikdashi, Puar) and their various reasons for citing Israel as an example of homonationalist practices. As a result, the Israel section comes off as much stronger and more evidenced than the Ukraine section does. The article as a whole would be strengthened by adding more evidence from a wider variety of sources to the Ukraine section.