User:Taylorstevens12/Evaluate an Article

Queer ecology
Queer ecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I am not only interested in the environmental/natural matters but also am a member of the queer community and this article references both feminist science studies and ecofeminism, which feel related to the feminisms course I am currently enrolled in. This matters because of intersectionality and raising up female voices inherently will bring up the issue of raising queer voices. My initial impression was that the article was interesting and that it brought up new ideas and terminology that I had not heard of before.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead did not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It felt confusing that the article immediately jumped to another article (queer theory) in the first sentence, so that one could not understand queer ecology from the sentence whatsoever without first understanding this term. a more generalized approach would be a better lead sentence. Further the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections and includes information that is not present in the article (how queer ecology interacts with feminist science studies).

Content

The articles content seems up to date and relevant. There is no content that feels missing or as though it does not belong. Finally it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics (LGBT+ and women).

Tone and Balance

The article seems to speak from a neutral point of view with no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The article does not seem to heavily weigh any information or attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

Not all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Two sources are magazines with multiple other sources being marked as needing verification. Though sources otherwise seem up to date, and the links work.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article does not seem all that easy to read. The sections do not flow well and the lead is more confusing than some of the sub-sections, of which do not outright make it clear that they reflect the major points of the topic. The article does not seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

The article includes no images that enhance understanding of the topic.

Talk page discussion

There are no discussions on the talk page and the article seems to be rated C-Class and Low-Importance to most of its relevant areas of study.

Overall Impressions

This article seems under-developed and in need of some structural reorganization as well as more reliable coverage from sources.