User:OUJA22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it goes along with what we are learning in the course. It is important because every article involving women and gender studies or gender and identity ion STEM relates to what I will be learning more about in my course. I preliminary impression of the article was that the article would show the progression of gender studies over time.

Evaluate the article

 * The lead section includes a first sentence that gives a broad definition of what gender studies is. The lead also tells what the next sections will be about and includes a brief idea of what the headlines mean. Everything in the lead is somewhere else throughout the article. The lead is decently concise. It does not spoil too much of what the article has to offer, but still provides an overview.


 * The content has some bits where certain subheadings have less content than others. Making all of the sections about the same length with the same intensity makes an article flow better. The content is relevant to the topic, although some sections seem a little out of place. Although the lead talked about race and nationality, I was not expecting a ton of sections about different countries. The content does seem up to date. I think the women's studies paragraph definitely needs to have more information considering the men's studies paragraph is vastly longer. This article does a good job of talking about places all around the world dealing with the issues of gender equality.


 * The article gives off a neutral tone. I don't really see any parts that show bias towards any subject. Like I said in the last bullet, the men's studies paragraph is overrepresented when compared to the women's studies paragraph that is underrepresented. There is not much persuasion happening in this article.


 * The sources and references are not the best. When looking through names and subjects throughout the article, many of the links lead you to other Wikipedia pages. I have not found many scholarly sources or reputable sources. I think almost every link leads you right back to Wikipedia, which is not helpful or reliable. The links work, but are not helpful.


 * The writing quality is lacking. The article was easy to understand and was written in a manner that was a little confusing. From what I saw, there were a few spelling or grammar errors. This article has so many categories and subcategories for easy use. The headings help guide the reader to wherever they might be trying to find information from.


 * This article includes one image. The image shows people protesting for gender ideology. This image enhances just one section of the article, but does not help in any other part of the reading. The image has a caption that explains the image in a condensed amount of words. I don't like visually how the image is displayed. I think it looks very randomly placed in the article. The image does not deface the Wikipedia copyright regulations.


 * The talk page has many people discussing how they disagree with the title of this article and how the writer has many spelling issues. The behind the scenes shows that many people have many things to say. Nobody comes off in a rude way or speaks rudely about the article. They give insightful suggestions to the writer and reader. This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. The article is apart of three WikiProjects; Gender studies, Sexology and sexuality, and Philosophy.


 * The overall status of this article is okay but not great. There are definitely sections of this article that could be improved for better reading and comprehension. The subheadings give this article strength, but some sections need to be lengthened due to the fact other sections are extremely lengthy. I think this article is underdeveloped.