User:Sarang04/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feminist rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I have been interested in the topic of feminism for years and I considered that reading an article specifically about feminist rhetoric, which is a concept I had not heard about before, was a great opportunity for me to learn and develop more knowledge about the topic. I believe this article and its topic matter because it is important for our society to work together to create a place where equality and inclusivity prevail for everyone of us. As I took a first look at its headings, I thought the article would contain interesting and significant information about the topic. There is a ‘Further reading’ section in the article and I thought it was convenient for the readers to learn more about this specific topic of interest.

Evaluate the article
 Lead section 

The lead of this article includes an introductory sentence that describes the article’s topic in a concise and clear way. It also includes a brief description of one of the article’s major sections, which is the definition and goals section, however this is not the case with the rest of the major sections. Additionally, all the information included in the lead is present in the article. However, as it was previously mentioned, the lead lacks information about some of the major sections of the article. Regardless of this, the lead is presented in a concise manner.

 Content 

The article’s content is relevant to the topic as it talks about different aspects that relate to the concept of feminist rhetoric. The content was updated several times during 2022. It doesn’t seem that there is content missing or content that does not belong in the article. However, we can see how some sections have more information than other sections, and for a Wikipedia article to be considered a good article, it is important to equally address every aspect of the topic. In addition, the article covers topics related to the historically underrepresented population of women and other marginalized groups.

 Tone and balance 

The article seems to be presented as neutral. It doesn’t seem that there are any claims that show heavy bias towards a specific position. Based on my judgment, there are no viewpoints that are either overrepresented or underrepresented, and the minority viewpoints are not described as such. That being said, the article does not try to persuade the reader on being in favor or against a certain position.

 Sources and references 

All the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough, in a way that they reflect the available literature on the topic of the article. They are also written by a variety of different authors and there are a number of peer-reviewed articles as sources used in the article. Additionally, all the links that appear in the article work. However, some of the used sources are not that current, which can be an obstacle for this to be a good Wikipedia article.

 Organization and writing quality 

The article is somewhat well-written, in a way that it is concise, but there are certain phrases and sentences that require the readers to have a good understanding and knowledge about particular terms related to the topic of the article. Therefore, it could be said that some parts of the article lack clarity and are not that easy to read. On the other hand, the article did not seem to have any major grammatical or spelling errors, and it is presented in an organized way since we can see how the content of the article is divided into sections that display the main points of the topic.

 Images and media 

The article includes two images that help the readers understand the topic much better; one image is about an influential person that has spoken about feminist rhetoric and another image about a wallpaper that serves as an example of visual feminist rhetoric. The images are well-captioned and they adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. They are also presented in a visually appealing manner that grabs the reader's attention towards them.

 Talk page discussion 

The kinds of conversations being held about how to represent this topic include the fixing of a neutrality problem in the article as well as the suggestion of placing the last paragraph about the implications of feminist rhetoric before the history section. The article is part of WikiProject Feminism as well as WikiProject Writing, and it is rated as C-Class on both projects’ quality scale, but in the case of the projects’ importance scale, the article is rated as Low-importance in the WikiProject Feminism and as High-importance in the WikiProject Writing.

 Overall impressions 

The article’s overall status is that it has useful information about the topic of feminist rhetoric, but lacks some aspects that could make it a good Wikipedia article. However, one of the article’s strengths is that it has a variety of sources and references from which the information was taken, and the fact that there is a ‘Further reading’ section that can help the readers develop their knowledge about this topic of interest for them. One of the ways in which the article can be improved is by adding an equal amount of information for each of the sections presented in the article, and perhaps more images could be included if possible. I believe the article has some parts that are well-developed and other parts that are poorly developed, therefore, by adding some improvements to the article, it will become more complete.