User:Shellie4/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: DignityUSA
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am interested in what this organization is doing today and when I was looking for articles I realized this one was marked as category S.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

DignityUSA is an organization with headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts that focuses on LGBT rights and the Catholic Church. Dignity Canada exists as the Canadian sister organization. The organization is made up of local chapters across the country, and functions both as a support and social group for LGBT and LGBT-accepting Catholics to worship together. "The goal of "Dignity" is to serve as an advocate for change in the Roman Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality", and as an activist group for LGBT rights and education about LGBT issues. Since 2007, Marianne Duddy-Burke has served as Executive Director.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, It barely describes the organization but not what is in the article and only gives minimal information regarding the organization.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the article doesn't mention Canada.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I don't think it is detailed enough.

Lead evaluation
Needs improvement.

Content

 * Guiding questions

Founding[edit]
Dignity was founded in 1969 in San Diego, California, by Father Pat Nidorf, first as a counseling, then as a support group. The first chapter of Dignity formed in 1970 in Los Angeles. In 1982, lesbian members of Dignity founded the Conference for Catholic Lesbians out of concern that Dignity was too oriented toward males.

DignityUSA has been recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization since August 1982.

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons[edit]
Main article: On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catholic body charged to "spread sound Catholic doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines", issued a letter entitled On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. In it, the Catholic Church affirmed its position that homosexuality was an "objective disorder" and that all support should be withdrawn from any organization that undermined the Church's teaching or were ambiguous about or neglectful of it.

According to write Neil Miller, an immediate effect of the document was the decision by several American bishops to order that DignityUSA no longer be allowed to hold Mass in Catholic churches. Dioceses in Atlanta, Minneapolis, Buffalo, Brooklyn, Pensacola, Vancouver, Washington, D.C., and New York City all rescinded permission for the organization to hold services on church property. In some cases the group chapters had been holding Masses for a decade or longer.

Honors[edit]
DignityUSA was given Call To Action's 1994 Leadership Award. Dignity Chicago was inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame in 1997.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, it does not talk about recent closers or who was able to stay open after the 1986 shut down.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there is missing content which makes this article feel inaccurate. It is missing middle pieces.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it discusses the LGBTQ community and is fighting to lessen the equity gap in the Catholic Church.

Content evaluation
Needs work.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, I did think it was neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I believe the whole article is underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Other than needing more information I felt it was good.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Hogan, Steve and Lee Hudson (1998). Completely Queer: The Gay and Lesbian Encyclopedia. New York, Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 0805036296.
 * Miller, Neil (1995). Out Of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History From 1869 To the Present. New York, Vintage (a division of Random House). ISBN 0099576910.
 * The National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History (1996). The Gay Almanac. New York, Berkeley Books. ISBN 0425153002.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, there are quotes stating sources without links and information without source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, the information needs work.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No the sources are not current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the sources are from different authors including a national museum.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The in text wiki links work but the source page is all books and those do not take me anywhere.

Sources and references evaluation
Needs work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No, it feels like its missing information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I do feel it is well organized but again feels like its missing information.

Organization evaluation
Needs a little work.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The only image is the Logo, could use more color, rainbows, gays, or even a church.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, there is no caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Not sure, looks like a copy and paste logo
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, needs more

Images and media evaluation
Needs work

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page talks about adding Dignity Canada information.Someone mentions the view of homosexual orientation as different than the act which was not represented in the article. The original author seemed to have some bias and multiple people removed or rewrote out the bias. put some bias and someone removed it. Someone was going to fix the links and wanted others to look over their work before making the change. I can't tell if they made the change or not because the link doesn't work.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated S and is part of WikiProject Christianity/Catholicism, WikiProject LGBT studies and WikiProject Organizations. It was nominated for deletion in 2013 but was chosen to stay.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This discusses the LGBTQ community in a more negative light then we talk in class however I do feel there is a lot more similarities for instance this organization in my opinion was brought on because of someones inner erotic to want to feel safe in both the Catholic Church as well as the LGBTQ community

Talk page evaluation
Not a lot of traffic

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Needs a lot of work
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Its discussing an important Organization, and I believe the lead does explain the Organization.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Research needs to be done and this article should probably be rewritten.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped, I don't think its bad I just think it needs more information.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: