User:Yezi Fang/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Feminist rhetoric (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has triggered people to commemorate her outstanding contribution as a female jurist on social networks. I also re-watched the documentary about her and gained a deeper understanding of RBG's contribution to fighting for women's rights and the guidance of the feminist movement in her career. At the same time, I am also paying attention to the contribution of feminist icons in various fields to the feminist movement. However, feminist rhetoric is an aspect that I did not know before. I am curious about the history and current situation in this field, so I chose to evaluate this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes an introductory sentence, but I think it does not clearly and effectively explain the subject of this article, which is actually a very vague definition. Besides, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and the remaining sentences are just to further explain the definition of feminist rhetoric. Although the Lead does not summarize the content of the article, it also does not mention content that does not present in the article, which is worthy of approval. Overall, I think the Lead is too concise and it needs to include a description of the main sections of the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content of the article is not really up-to-date, because its latest reference is from 2018. Since this is a relatively new field, it is obvious that it has not updated the latest information. There is not content that is missing or dose not belong, which make it article easy to read. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article is actually not very neutral. Although it does not appear words like "only" or "the best", it can be seen that the author has obvious support for one aspect based on the author's own knowledge. In the article, there is a claim about what is the point of feminist rhetoric without any citation. This obviously shows that the author put his own proposition in the article. From my perspective, this article lacks a critical part of feminist rhetoric, resulting in the whole article being only positive about this topic, which shows the author attempt to persuade the reader to believe this claim. Besides, the "gender" might be underrepresented.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information and they are thorough. But the sources are not up-to-dates, the latest one is from 2018. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and all the links work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

This article is well-written and easy to read. But I think it is not well-organized. In my point of view, it is better to put the last paragraph about implications before the history section and view it as the first section since this paragraph further explains feminist rhetoric.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not include any images and this makes this article look unattractive.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversations are about fixing the neutrality problem and asking if need any help. This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale and has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Because this article is also considered a C-Class article by Wikipedia, it must have many shortcomings. In fact, I think this article does not provide readers with clear and detailed information about feminist rhetoric, and there is no critical part of feminist rhetoric in the article, which makes the tone of the article not very neutral. The advantage of this article is that it divides the themes of feminist rhetoric into four parts, which makes this section clear and easy for readers to read. This article can add more information from the past two years, making the content more up-to-date, and can add criticism of feminist rhetoric, making the position in the article more diverse. Overall, I'd say this article is underdeveloped.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Feminist rhetoric