User:Raizaj24/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
Anti-rape movement

I have chosen this article because it's very important to accurately educate people about this topic that has been haunting people, especially women, in a way that is not normal. It has to be known that rape culture exists for everyone to acknowledge it, start acting on it doing everything in our power to make this generation better and safer, which is a right that everyone deserves.

Lead
The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes clearly the article's topic but it's very detailed in the definition and the concept of the topic and it doesn't present relevant general information. It's more focused in the definition and only mentions a few of the sections discussed, but there isn't a brief description. It's long and people may assume it contains diverse information but it feels repeated.

Content
The article although poorly written and developed has abundant information on the birth of the Anti-Rape Movement, firstly focusing on its origin and adding support from legal and social points of views which is relevant to the topic. This article manages to articulate the importance of every aspect of the Anti-Rape movement, from the different points in time where the unfortunate and unforgettable event known as rape has occurred and the suffering that this has brought upon women as a whole and to their gender. Although it is well versed in legal terms and social critics, from other points of view it may be noted that the male rape situation isn’t as explicitly or well discussed as the female type. The writer could've also add a few more important role models or figures and events to contribute to the information. Considering the information was posted in 2010 the information is not very reliable, for we do not know how much the legal terms have changed and how it has evolved through the generation and ideologies throughout the time.

Tone and Balance
The article doesn't seem biased. It has a neutral tone, but there are a lot of overrepresented sections throughout the article. It was professionally presented without a tone of persuasion but an informative tone.

Sources and References
Most of the links work, but there are a few that don't open, because they're not current. Although there are a lot of sources, not all of them are reliable, some were taken from a PDF, some are repeated. It contains a variety of authors, which can be good but for the reasons mentioned, it may not be as reliable.

Organization
The writer demonstrates a sort of simplicity in their form of writing with redundancy and some grammatical errors, but not spelling errors. The information is clear and easy to read but not concise, because in some sections the writer kept repeating either words or the definition in other words instead of providing more relevant information of the section. Overall, the article is well-organized broken down into section to section, because it presented firstly the definition, then the origins of the movement, important contributions, organizations created to improve it and the achievements of these organizations. Being one the achievements legal and social recognition, which are some of the sections, but the problem would be the lack of relevance of what was written in it, not the section per se.

Images and Media
The article provides two images relevant to the content which helps the reader to have a better representation of what is being discussed. The first image presents the President of Feminist Majority with the purpose to place a face of an important figure of the movement, while the other image has the geographical purpose of stating where a law was active or still is, and this information is presented in the caption. However, the writer only presents those two images in which case they could have added more relevant pictures in order to maintain the attention of the reader and present a different way to analyze what’s being discussed. Well done so, the images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page
The conversation in the Talk Page is constructive criticism since the majority of the feedback that was given to the writer tells him how to write in a more efficient way. Others also helped by taking action and adding relevant information to the article, which backed up the main topic. In the other hand, others suggested information that would help. Although the article is rated C, it's part of 7 WikiProjects.

Overall impressions
The writer has the good intention of providing facts about a topic, which is the purpose of Wikipedia, and does not try to implant an opinion or tries to persuade the reader. I consider that is its only strength. But the information is very repetitive and needs almost a decade worth updating. So much more happened that has improved this movement after it was published. The article needs better sources, more concise information of each section, even more sections added, and the grammatical errors need to be fixed. Maybe if more images were added as well, readers would be more attracted to it. The sections were relevant to the topic, but the paragraphs lack diversity and could be developed better.