User:Sracha is gud/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Feminist rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because the Feminist aspect of it stood out to me, and I wanted to make sure I was evaluating an article I had genuine interest in. My preliminary impression of it was that it contained a lot of information about its topic and stayed true to the topic throughout, though it did not feel very neutral while I was reading it.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article was rated C-Class and Low importance. Overall, the biggest issue I caught while reading was neutrality and multiple instances of vagueness throughout. It did, however, stick to the topic from beginning to end, and all of the facts seemed to be backed up with sources.

The lead section was strong. The author defined Feminist rhetoric in the first sentence and the rest of the lead continued to explain what Feminist rhetoric is and is not. The information covered in the lead section was expanded on throughout the rest of the article, and there were no topics introduced in the first paragraph that weren't mentioned again later. This section did, however, place a slightly larger emphasis on what rhetorical Feminism is than on the key themes being explored about Feminist rhetoric. It would've been better to spend less time expanding on that more more time introducing the topics that were going to be discussed most in the article as a whole.

All content in the article was relevant to the topic of Feminist rhetoric, and there didn't seem to be any content talked about much more than others. One problem I noticed was a lot of the content was drawn from sources from 10+ years ago, with very few sources being updated within the last five years, so most of the information is dated. That being said, a major strength of the article was the fact its content was representative of many marginalized populations with no noticeable equity gaps. It contained representation of men, colored women, transgender women, and queer women as it pertained to the topic.

This article's biggest weakness was it's like of neutrality. Though there were no direct statements actively attempting to sway the reader in one direction, the author's thoughts about the subject matter were still extremely clear. This was mostly due to the uneven representation of viewpoints regarding the best type of rhetoric/persuasive tactics to use. Despite the topic of the article literally being Feminist rhetoric, neutrality could've been achieved if the article included more information about other persuasion methods, other than the fact they contain a patriarchal bias.

The sources were all related to the topic and full of a plethora of information, though most were not current. Several were written in the 1980s and almost half were written in the 1990s, with a small minority from the past five years. More peer-reviewed articles could've been used, but they were written by a large variety of authors and included perspectives from marginalized groups. All of the links work as well.

The article was well-written and concise, though it would've helped if more examples were given on the subject matter. Ideas were introduced very vaguely, with very little expansion, and it would've been easier to understand the topic if there were specific examples following the introduction of new concepts. It was organized neatly but unevenly, the last three sections being noticeably smaller than the others. It was as if the author lost motivation at the end, because there was barely any information in the last two sections at all, especially compared to the first few.

There are only two images displayed throughout the entire article, with very vague, very short captions. There is no information in the captions regarding where the pictures are sourced from, and they are placed very close together. It would've probably been more helpful if there were either more pictures, or if those two pictures were spread out a little more.

There aren't many discussions going on in the Talk page, but the ones that are there are about the organization of the article and its lack of neutrality. Since those are two of the articles' biggest weaknesses, this makes sense. It says this article was "within the scope of WikiProject Writing" and rated C-Class with low importance.

Overall, the article's main strengths were its dedication to representing the perspectives of marginalized groups and the fact it stayed true to the subject all the way throughout. Its main weaknesses were its lack of neutrality and organization. It didn't feel complete because the last three sections were so short, and it ended rather abruptly. There was so much information packed into the first several sections that the briefness of the last three is almost shocking.