User:Wren42p/Evaluate an Article

Queer ecology(Provide a link to the article here.)
== The article sounded very interesting as I had never heard of queer ecology as a concept and wanted to see how long and concrete the article would be. Queer ecology is very important because it shifts out perceptions of nature and challenges heteronormative, "non-natural" ideas of nature when in fact nature is very gay. The first impression was very good as there is a lot of gender theory literature cited and it's longer than I thought it would be. ==

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

== The lead section provides a good summary, but is a little vague at the end. I think the overview was really effective and did a great job explaining how the terms "queer" and "ecology" connect, because it's not a very well-known topic. The content is good the one thing I have to say is that they list transsexual in with the LGBTQ+ acronym and I'm not sure that's politically correct as it perpetuates the idea that trans people are only "valid" if they alter their appearance with surgeries (which is completely false...all trans people are valid no matter what they look like). The article appears well-balanced and full of good information. The sources are all from the last 20+ years which is good. Most are from 2010 to today and I checked several of the links and they do work. The sources are diverse from magazines to academic papers and theses to published books. The article is well written and organized. There are no pictures, but I'm not sure a picture would benefit the article significantly. The article has a fairly active talk section with some critiques and praises. The article is rated as "low-importance" and is under the c-class for philosophy, LGBTQ studies, ecology, environment, visual arts, and feminism. The article is fairly fleshed out, but reading the other evaluations, there are sections that could be cited more regularly and sometimes the narrative feels as though is doesn't link back to queer ecology. Overall, it's a decent article, but could be improved with more editing. ==

(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.)