User:Wrig36/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Patriarchy - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article on patriarchy because I believe it is directly related to and intertwined within the anthropology/sociology if violence. Patriarchal systems have historically and currently propped up violence against women especially, but also against all people as patriarchal ideals serve an imbalanced power dynamic that I believe is rooted in violence. Gender inequality for the purpose of keeping men at the top of this unbalanced power dynamic is still pervasive in modern society.

This topic matters because until we can dissect the roots, systems and structure of patriarchal social systems, I don't believe we have a chance at dismantling it.

My preliminary impression of the article is that covers the meaning of patriarchy from a broad lens and does a decent job of explaining what patriarchy is and what effect it's had. I appreciate that it doesn't offer opinions, but looks at the objective ways of how a patriarchal power structure looks, and how it's played out throughout certain parts of history. (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary imp

Evaluate the article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * This article is relevant to the topic. I think it does a decent job at explaining what patriarchy is without offering biased or subjective viewpoints. I didn't find anything particularly distracting; I appreciate that the writer(s) gave varied definitions in the sense that they explain how different scholarly disciplines identify the meaning of patriarchy, including the differences in how it's defined across these disciplines.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Without becoming more of an expert in the history of patriarchy and its varied effects on societal structure and social evolution, I can't say if anything in this article is particularly outdated. I checked/researched some of the information and found it to be accurate and up-to-date.
 * There are some contemporary feminists that I believe are worth mentioning as their work relates to the patriarchy, like RGB, Hillary Clinton, and others but perhaps you'd find mention of them on pages specifically about contemporary feminists.
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * I do find there to be notable equity gaps in the history section. The only history sections are in reference to western and Asian history as it relates to this topic. There's A LOT more that can be added, from patriarchal history within African, middle eastern, eastern European, etc., societies. I would argue patriarchy is most pervasive in middle-eastern cultures and that could be a major talking point within this article.
 * What else could be improved?
 * As I said above, I would expand on the history section to make the article more well-rounded and to include patriarchal history within other cultures, especially cultures where the patriarchy is still such a dominant power structure. I would also mention more contemporary feminists and their work against the patriarchy. I'd maybe even include female figures that actively work against feminism still today. There is not mention of abortion and modern-day reproductive rights or their dismantling, which I think is a huge part of patriarchy/male-dominant social systems, so that's something I would also include to make this more up-to-date.
 * I clicked on 15 different citations/links and 2 of them didn't work, but the sources all seem to be from a variety of different places, most of which seem reputable.
 * I checked the talk page and there are claims about the article being from a biased lens in comparison to the "matriarchy" page. The reasoning is that the patriarchy article uses more language that is typically given negative connotation such as words like "dominate," "exploit, or "oppress." I didn't find this language to be particular problematic because it's accurate, even if the connotations for this language tend to be negative. There's also talk about the introduction being poor, which I find somewhat true, but upon further reading you see that the author(s) expand on their intro sentence pretty well.