User:Mspushypots/sandbox

Article evaluation

Women's studies - It lacks enough citations, might be a good option for editing. Some of the methodologies listed are unfamiliar. There is a lot of repeated wording and strange grammatical usage that could be corrected. There does seem to be some bias, but it goes both for and against the subject so it balances. The use of other peoples words and quotes seems in the last section does not add any real knowledge to the article, as it is very opinionated. Some links are lacking or could be updated with more relevant ones. The talk page is interesting. There are several people on there who clearly thing women's studies is a pseudo-subject for universities to teach.

Genderqueer - it is a bit confusing to read even with some knowledge of the subject. The verbiage is a bit muddled and jargon-y. Not for the layperson without them having to look up a lot of definition on their own. The talk pages were mostly concerned with whether the apparent ongoing debate on what the page should be titled. I don't feel qualified to add or engage in this subject at this point.

White feminism - This does not really seem like a relevant topic on its own. The idea could be integrated within the "waves of feminism" pages, as it basically just outlines how white feminism was brought about during each wave. The entire last paragraph on Emily Shire is unhelpful and irrelevant to the subject. I commented on this talk page.