User:Ognextdoor/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gender inequality in Liberia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to my country, Liberia, and I found the topic interesting and it is something I am considering exploring further to get a topic for my own wikipedia page. Gender inequality in Liberia is important because recognizes it will enable further change of patterns, institutions, and ideologies that are negatively impacting women. My first impression of the article is that it is very lengthy, seems detailed, and has a lot of references.

Evaluate the article
I feel like the lead section is too concise and not detailed enough because it does not mention most of the article's context or at least a brief description of its major sections. There are some general facts given at the end of the lead section that seem out of place and random.

The article's content is definitely related to the topic, and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. All of the content appears up to date, as of 2013, relevant, and very central to the topic.

The tone of the article was neutral, the article focused on giving facts/information and not on swaying the reader. The article accurately described the position of women using data and statistics.

The sources are all reliable thorough and current although I believe more could've been used to back up certain facts. I can see that a lot of literature/discourse and peer reviewed articles were used which is very good, and the links I clicked did work.

The article is very well written and I only noticed one grammatical error.

The article only includes one image, which is at the top next to the lead section. It is well captioned and cited.

The talk page discussion is not very active and has few entries but they all give very positive feedback. The article is part of the WikiProjects Gender Studies, Discrimination, and Africa/Liberia, and is rated start-class on each.

Overall, I was very impressed with the article. It was clear, concise yet detailed, and very informative with reliable sources. My only critique would be to amend the lead section, because it does not accurately convey the content of the article.