User:Nalanim0920/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feminist rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because the author mentions the core priorities of feminist rhetoric with inclusivity and equality. This was extremely appealing to me.

Evaluate the article
When evaluating the lead section in this article, I discovered that the introductory sentence helps to concisely describe the designated topic the author will be expanding upon. I drew this conclusion based on the mention of Feminist Rhetoric and the explanation of the definition. This section maps out the article's major sections when mentioning the key topics like history, race and gender identity. No, as predicted, the lead does not include information that is not present within the other sections due to the previous mapping done. The lead is very concise, which I appreciate because this creates a segway into the expanded upon thoughts of the author, based on those topics. There are brief snippets of important terms, but they're not evaluated into later in the article.

The content in this article covers important aspects of the feminist rhetoric while equally distributing in the heavier themed sections, excluding the smaller and less detailed mentions. The article's content provides many examples and themes in regard to feminist rhetoric. This content is up-to-date based on the historical background provided and the change that has developed. The content provided does not show any sections and themes that do not belong, especially with the challenge and implications sections. I do believe that the section about gender could be expanded upon, due to it being a major theme with this topic. There is a mention of transgender people, but this is briefly and is something that can be added to. This article does discuss Wikipedia's equity gaps very briefly, in terms of education and men. Yes, it addresses historical topics about underrepresented populations like the queer community and women.

The tone and balance in this article stands at a neutral point of view because of the authors way of telling the story, especially historically, in regard to what happened as opposed to including opinion based sentences. When reading this article, I found that there weren't any claims that appeared heavily biased towards the feminist position because most of what was written about in this article is factual evidence, again especially historically. The viewpoints that are overrepresented is the feminist view, which I believe is an obvious reason due to the topic and title of the article. Even though this is a feminist-based article the male's perspective is underrepresented, in terms of the way this is a problem. The minority viewpoints are accurately described within this article because the struggles that women have gone through is represented, even globally. I do not think that the author intentionally persuades the reader to favor one position but I do think based on the historical background that is provided, this might be apparent of the way the audience might feel after reading due to human nature.

This Wikipedia article uses sources that not only use common themes of women and rhetoric but also the use of both topics in their source come up which provides a different perspective from the two terms alone. Based on the number of sources used, they do reflect the available literature on the topic because of the abundant amount available. If this wasn't a predominant issue or topic there wouldn't be 20 articles used for sources. These sources are current, with the author’s citations including dates around the early 2010’s. When analyzing the spectrum of the authors of these sources used, I found that it was diverse in terms that there were many women and men who contributed to these articles but also found that the predominant race among these authors was white. This I feel can limit results that you would otherwise get on a more diverse spectrum. these authors also seem to be professionals in their field, which is very reliable. These are the better sources available because they are peer reviewed and not just on random websites. A good amount of ISB numbers is provided which indicates that the sources are pulled from books which is a highly credible source.

The author includes clear and professional language that is organized within different subcategories in regard to definitions, history, and themes. With this way of organization, I would say that this is concise and easy to read based with the idea of becoming familiar with the topic and the issue and moving forward to how different themes coincide with negatives and positives. When reading through this article I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors, which also brings another point as to why it is so organized. With the article being broken down into sections, this reflects major points of the topic and different perspectives within coinciding themes.

The author does include images of visual feminist rhetoric and influential pieces that were important with the development of feminist rhetoric. The images are well captioned with providing the reason and importance of putting the picture there, but there isn't much of an explanation as to when or where the picture was taken. Due to plagiarism, I do not think that the first photo adheres to the Wikipedia’s copyright regulations based on the lack of citation. I would not say it is a visual masterpiece, but the two photos coincide nicely with the text. With that being said, more photos could have been added that represented the themes, with a more visually appealing strategic layout.

The discussions that are taking place on the talk page aren't necessarily conversations about behind the scenes of the topic but more on grammatical fixes and additions being added. This article has been rated a low C, which is not a terrible rating but isn't spectacular. This article is part of a Wikiproject. Wikipedia talks about it more historically than we do in class but looks at the same themes that we do, like gender and race. There is an expansion on influences on the way feminist rhetoric has come about and influences that have made it the way that it is today. We tend to focus on the communicational aspects of these themes and compare this to our everyday societal lives.

Lastly, the article's overall status is centered into the middle, with the grade being a C. In my opinion I think the article deserves a little bit better of a rating due to the many perspectives that the author included, especially global narratives. At the article strength are the reliable sources chosen, the many perspectives analyzed, and the historical background that is needed to fully understand this concept. The article can be improved by visually being more appealing and adding more visual representation. I would assess the article's completeness with being almost completely developed but needing a bit of tweaking and an expansion upon some of the subcategories included. It is a bit underdeveloped but not poorly developed.