User:Sylvierichards/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Intersectionality

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 the article because intersectionality has been a key discussion point throughout many of my WGSS classes, but I think that the topics gets discussed far more in academic settings, specifically ones like gender/race studies, and therefore the knowledge of it is unevenly distributed. This also means that the most marginalized individuals may not know about or be able to access information on a topic that regards their own lived experiences. The Wikipedia article is therefore important to close this gap and make the concept of intersectionality accessible to more groups. From first glance, the article seems highly researched and thorough, but still accessible to understand.

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.)

Evaluating "Intersectionality"

Lead:


 * yes
 * The lead does not outline one of the main sections -- "Practical Applications"
 * No
 * Concise

Content:


 * Yes
 * Yes -- most recent source comes from 2022
 * No
 * The article clearly contributes to one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, as it describes "intersectionality," a topic that has only recently become a more commonly discussed topic in academics and other conversations. It discusses how all issues must be investigated in multiple frameworks that include the experiences of underrepresented people.

Tone and Balance:


 * There appears to be no bias and the article is neutral on the topic. It includes a long section of "criticism" which ensures that it covers multiple views of intersectionality.

Sources and References:


 * Includes multiple reliable sources.
 * Marginalized individuals who are highly relevant to the topic like Bell Hooks and Audre Lorde.

Organization/Writing Quality:


 * clearly highly edited/concise but thorough
 * easy to navigate

Images and Media:


 * Because the article is so long, I think there could be more visual media.
 * The images on the page currently are well captioned and make sense.

Talk page discussion:


 * 5 wiki projects
 * WikiProject Sociology	(Rated C-class, High-importance) WikiProject Feminism	(Rated C-class, High-importance) WikiProject Gender studies	(Rated C-class, Low-importance)  WikiProject Discrimination	(Rated C-class, High-importance)  WikiProject Psychology	(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
 * Less talk than I expected considering how many edits it has.

Overall Impressions:


 * well developed
 * could extend criticism section, especially conservatism to show more citations
 * spots where there are citations and examples needed that have not been filled
 * more images
 * could include a law section where it goes more in depth into how intersectionality applies in the law. it currently mentions Crenshaw as the person who coined the term, but does not go into her legal analysis of the anti-discrimination doctrine, only mentions it. This could be included in the "practical applications section", perhaps after "social work" is described.