User:Morgan such/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.


 * Female Promiscuity: Female promiscuity
 * This article seemed like an interesting evaluation of female promiscuity by analyzing the psychological, biological, and social history of the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, it discussed the article's purpose of analyzing the biological and social factors that affect female promiscuity.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, this information is contained within the content box located directly below the lead section.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, it is more of a short summary of solely what is included in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''The lead is fairly concise. It is about 3 sentences which is a very brief summary of the whole article's contents.'''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Most of the time yes, there are times when it seems to get a bit off topic such as in the biologicals section where a variance of animals are looked at instead of solely humans.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

For the most part yes, this is more of a recent topic so most things with this issue haven't really been resolved.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

'''I don't really notice any content that is blindingly "missing", however, this is a huge topic and could be looked at from many more angles than what they chose. I would also focus the article on solely human biology instead of bringing in multiple animals because they are never mentioned after that.'''


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

'''In a way, yes. It deals with the misconceptions and stigma regarding women's sexuality. It is representing the un-biased side of stigmatized female promiscuity while comparing it with un-stigmatized male promiscuity.'''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, it is mostly looking at the claims from a feminist standpoint but there seem to be no extreme biases present in the writing.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the article goes over societal influences such as religion but never takes a side on these issues saying if it is "bad" or not.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not entirely, I feel like certain issues could have been represented more as they are more prevalent than the article wrote them out to be.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

In a way, I believe the point of the article was to destigmatize female promiscuity so it attempts to do so but in a way that is more factually than emotionally motivated.

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, there are a lot of useful resources on the cite for used information as well as vocabulary which I found helpful. The few statements that are not cited have a warning that the information has not yet been referenced which is nice.'''


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources include all kinds of reference material such as websites, books, magazines, and articles so it is a pretty well-rounded arrangement of sources.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, this is a fairly recent movement so most sources are dated after 2010 with the exception of the resources used to gain historical content for the article.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

'''Yes, there is a good disbursement of female and male authors cited which adds to the neutrality factor of the article. It is hard to know the ethnicity of the authors, however, by looking at last names there seems to be a good amount of variety when taking culture into account.'''


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes the links seem to check out as valid sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Not really, the content is interesting but it is pretty much just a bunch of facts thrown one after another into paragraphs without any real story or flow.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

None that I have seen, or none that are overwhelming present.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

'''I think that the organization could have been done better. It would have been nice to follow the article from common stigmas to the conclusion involving breaking the stigma but it seemed to do this in almost reverse order.'''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are images, I don't think they really enhance the article at all but they are still there for a reading break.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, captions are descriptive with links to the site and pop-up vocab boxed for unknown words.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

'''Not really, they are small and somewhat randomly chosen from the content presented. Different photos on this article would have made a huge difference to the impact of the information.'''

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Most of the conversations in the discussion posts are regarding content issues or potential new content.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

'''It is part of 3 wiki projects: Sexology and Sexuality, Gender Studies, and Women. It is rated as a C mid article.'''


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

'''The wikipedia really doesn't have any good discussions about the topic. I feel as if our class could have a much better discussion regarding this issue.'''

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

'''This article is generally informative. It could be made better but in the condition it's in now it does its job of educating about the chosen topic.'''


 * What are the article's strengths?

'''It is a good topic, it considers the issue from multiple unrelated fields which gives a good well-rounded view of the issue. Has some interesting information and takes regarding the issue.'''


 * How can the article be improved?

'''Visually, the article is pretty uninteresting so the photos and layout could definitely be developed. I also think a more directed sense of analyzing the topic could be used in content as well as presentation.'''


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

'''I agree with the C rating. It's good enough but not great, I could have learned a lot more I think if it would have been more thoroughly developed.'''

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: