User:Srh030/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article

Article Title: Nudity and sexuality - Wikipedia

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) It does not include
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? YES
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, this is a controversial topic and I feel like it addresses the topic in a balanced and informative way.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like the breast related section is almost miss placed, but it fits well with the article as a whole.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't feel like it included Wikipedia's equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, it is informative in a balanced way even if it is a controversial opinion-based topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article talks about both sides and opinions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, they are equal.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, all viewpoints are described as equals.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article is equal in all viewpoints.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are tons of multiple types of sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the information seems to have been taken and concised from the news articles, books, websites and journal articles.
 * Are the sources current? They are all from the late 90s to current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) There is a variety of all different types of sources. These various sources make the article more informative and accurate in my opinion.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, from all of the sources I checked they all worked.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is as easy to read as a social media post, but way more informative.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from what I can tell.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is well broken down and the sections reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there is no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? From what I can tell, there is no conversations behind the scenes.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any Wiki Projects? The article was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. It is part of Wiki Project Nudity.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This is a common topic that is most of the time discussed in a controversial way, but overall, this article is greatly rounded and put together how a typical Wikipedia article should be.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? I like it and it seems strongly rounded.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is well organized and put together as well as worded in an understandable way.
 * How can the article be improved? Maybe include more information about accepted cultures with nudity and their thoughts/beliefs.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Yes, the article is well written and developed aside from maybe more information and pictures should be included.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Nudity and sexuality - Wikipedia

Why have you 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 topic because I felt like it was interesting, and the topic stuck out to me immediately. This conversation matters because society is ever changing, and more is being done to chance the viewpoints of the human body as well as what is acceptable in public (ex. women's clothing). My preliminary impression was that this article is extremely interesting. I knew that there were nude beaches, but I did not realize that there were societies that looked at the body and nudity the same way.

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 discusses the differences between the thought processes of nudity in both public and private. Commonly it is viewed as indecent exposure and highly frowned upon, but it some cultures it is seen as almost normal. The article has many strong points and is well rounded when it comes to information and sources used based on the article. I love how the article had many hotlinks within it to identify what some of the words meant, like many other wiki articles do. All of the guiding questions that one may ask themselves are answerable and discussable based on this article.