User:Moonmocha/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Heteronormativity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to my project that I have to do about cisheteronormativity and trans communication. I also have always been interested in heteronormativity as a concept since the beginning of class. This article matters because heteronormativity, though relatively unknown by most people as a concept, affects large amount of LGBTQ+ people, both in school and in workplaces. My preliminary impression of the page is that it seems very detailed and thorough about the issue of heteronormativity. They have different subsections for 2 different identities in the transgression section, which I think is very interesting because that is a lot more detailed than a lot of articles about heteronormativity. They also have a lot of citations so I appreciate that they are pulling from different articles instead of just talking.

Evaluate the article
The article is about heteronormativity, which is the concept that heterosexuality is the preferred or "normal" sexual orientation compared to others and also assumes the gender binary, along with the idea that sexual relations are most fitting between people of the opposite sex. The article starts with this brief description and then goes into its major sections, which includes etymology, relation to marriage and the nuclear family, transgressions, homonormativity, and criticism.

Briefly looking at the page's references and bibliography, the sources could be up to date. Most of the sources are from the 2010s, which is mostly good, but then others are a bit older and are from the 2000s. There are a few up-to-date sources from 2021, but I would just take out the sources that are from the early 2000s and before. All of the content, however, seems to be pretty relevant to the topic. The topic also does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps and does talk about underrepresented populations since the entire concept of heteronormativity talks about how LGBTQ+ people are underrepresented and assumed to be heterosexual. I do think they could add some more subsections to the transgressions section since that section only talks about intersex and transgender people.

From what I see, the article is mostly neutral. Some sentences however could be phrased better, such as a sentence in the subsection about intersex people under the section transgressions. It states, "Surgery (usually involving modification to the genitalia) is often performed in an attempt to produce an unambiguously male or female body, with the parents'—rather than the individual's—consent." The way this sentence is framed almost feels like it is trying to imply that the parents were purposely being heteronormative or cause harm to their child, when a lot of parent of intersex people are pressured by medical professionals to go through with the surgery or their child will be harmed or in danger if they don't. Another sentence I don't necessarily appreciate is in the media representation subsection of criticism. It states, "Five different studies have shown that gay characters appearing on TV decreases the prejudice among viewers." I think this is too vague and they should've listed the five studies or at least a few to give it credibility.

Looking at the references again, it seems like most of the sources are peer-reviewed articles or books since they list a lot of ISBNs or DOIs. Most of the sources seem thorough as well, but I still do wish more of the articles were up-to-date and current. There are no sources from the 2020s but 1 or 2 and there are a few sources that date back to the 1980s or 1990s. All of the sources are from a different author and there are around 72 references. Clicking on the links, they all work.

Everything is well-written and concise, but at times, it's too concise and too short to the point where it leads some necessary information out. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. There are a decent amount of subsections and sections, so I would say that it is organized pretty well.

There are no images or media.

The talk page is pretty empty but it says the article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment between January 23, 2023, and May 8, 2023. There are no other conversations. The article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I think the way we discussed heteronormativity in class was way more sympathetic to the real-life situations that people face and it made me understand it more. There are no real-life situations, which makes sense, but takes away from the topic for me.

I think overall, the article is good. It could definitely be expanded a little bit more, but I think it's doing some good educating people on an important topic. The article's strengths is the amount of sources that it pulls from. Again, I still think that the article can be improved by adding more subsections and details. The article is just a little underdeveloped, but I wouldn't say poorly developed.