User:Taliyyah/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Feminist Rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As a feminist woman myself I choose this article because the title drew me in and I wanted to learn more about it. Not only that before reading the article I scroll through and saw that the article subheadings of topics appeared interesting to read. It matters to understand more on the topic "feminist rhetoric" since we live in a generation today where we need to be educated on women's community, inclusivity and diversity. My preliminary impression when reading the article was intriguing I didn't know their was a difference between feminist rhetoric and rhetorical feminism. But in the article it makes the distinction and talks more in detail about it so its extremely educational!

Lead Section
The lead section of the article Feminist rhetoric includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes what the author is going to be discussing in the article. It also includes a description of the major points that are going to be brought up. The lead section doesn't have any unnecessary information from what I have read that's not brought up again. The lead is straight to the point but detailed enough so that the reader understands.

Content
Everything that is talked about in the article is relevant to the topic of Feminist rhetoric. The last edit on the Wikipedia page was this year on June 12th so the content is up to date. I feel like there isn't any content missing nor is there content listed that doesn't belong, everything in the article works together well! The article does co-align with Wikipedia's equity gaps mainly since its discusses race and gender. The article does well with addressing topics related to people who are from underrepresented populations throughout history!

Tone and Balance
Throughout the reading, the article does remain neutral. There are a few claims that came off to me as being biased towards the topic but that could also be just how I read the article. A viewpoint that was overrepresented was in the definition and goals section I felt like it was focused on a lot more than the rest of the article. Yes, a fringe viewpoint is accurately seen as that. I do think the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one way but if you were to read the article with prior knowledge then yes.

Sources and References
In the article, all the information is backed up with reliable secondary sources. The sources do contain literature that discusses the topic more than the Wikipedia article itself. Not all of the secondary sources used are current some useful information from the 1900s to expand more on what they're trying to say but even then most of the sources used are from the early 2000s. The authors of the sources are from different backgrounds and the sources are from different periods. There aren't many "better" peer-reviewed articles that would replace the ones in this article. The links I clicked directed me to the secondary sources so they do indeed work.

Organization and writing quality
It's a very well-written article but it also may be a bit harder to understand for others. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I've noticed while reading. Feminist Rhetoric is well organized with many sections containing more detail that corresponds with the topic! It has subsections that include things like the history and challenges behind "feminist rhetoric".

Images and Media
The article does include images but only one enhances the understanding of the topic while the other doesn't. The two images that are there could contain a better caption reflecting the image but what's there isn't bad. All the images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, while one image is their work and the other the public can freely use. The images placed in the article are off in the corner and easy to overlook and I would prefer to place them more in the center.

Talk page discussion
The kind of conversations that were going on were people discussing the edits they made to the article. Someone edited the article to make it a more neutral tone for the readers and another changed paragraphs around so that it flowed better. The article has been rated under C-Class. It has been a part of quite a few WikiProjects in the past. The way Wikipedia talks about this topic is more of a professional tone whereas talking about this in class we can have a conversation and be able to express our thoughts clearly.

Overall impressions
The article Feminist rhetoric, overall status was a 8/10. The strengths aligned in the lead section and the history subsection. What needs to be improved more is the images along with their captions and to develop fully the other subsections of the article. In my terms, this is an underdeveloped article but with a few tweaks here and there it wouldn't at least be considered a C-Class project grade anymore.