User talk:Millsnaps/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Page titled "'Orientalism''"

To their credit, the contributors to the article successfully cease from presenting original research. In other words, they do not draw conclusions from the facts that they present - despite a temptation that might figure prominently: to produce an art historical analysis after stating what orientalist art implies (or even literary or historical analysis).

I appreciate how the contributors choose to reference the conclusions of analyses of Orientalism in the “Critical Studies” section. This makes it so they are capable of emphasizing the racism inherent in Orientalism (though they could do a better job of this by referring to white supremacist influences). By choosing to provide citations of reputable opinions on this topic, and also titled it “critical studies,” they can avoid making this section seem opinionated or subjective.

That said, I would prefer that the authors liberally distributed some of the thoughts presented in the “Critical Studies” section of the page. This applies to the “pre-19th century” section and when the contributors explain “French orientalism.” Both sections merit a discussion on the white supremacist implications inherent in both of these areas. The authors could accomplish this by referencing back to some points made in the “Critical Studies” section: drawing an explicit connection between these two areas would loan additional cohesiveness to the article. The authors actually accomplish this in the section titled “in literature.”

In the Etymology section, the contributors cite the “Monk’s Tale,” in which Chaucer writes the word “Orient.” I would have appreciated reading about the significance of the use of the word in this early context and whether this could possibly be one of the first uses of the word or where it came from. Otherwise, the reader does not know when the word originally was used. The contributors also reference In Place of Fear (1952) as a source in which the word Orient appears. The difference of approx. 400 years between the publication of these works suggests that the contributors abandon a broad stretch of time in their etymology-related background.

The quote by Jon Frederick Lewis under British Orientalism goes unexplained. Beyond this, I appreciate the thorough explanation of British Orientalism and how it differed in its focus on religion – however, the theological or religious implications of this could be more thoroughly explained.

Under the Oriental studies section, the comment on the simultaneously increasing popularity of Hebraism and Jewish studies distracts me and does not flow cohesively. On another note, “European architecture and design” fails to effectively link Turquerie, Chinoiserie, Japonism, and Orientalism. The reader infers that these styles attest to Orientalism, but the contributors fail to explicitly describe the connection and where it arises from.

Notably, the sources seem to be written by majority-white authors, which is important to keep in mind considering that authors of color should be featured in critiques on Orientalism. The links do work.

The Talk Page covers the article’s importance (generally high) to numerous Projects, including WikiProject Asia, WikiProject Religion, etc…. The article happens to be C-rated, although I am not sure what that means. Other conversations on the Talk Page include criticisms towards the lack of emphasis on Orientalism in Religion, general fact-checking, comments on length, etc.… We just briefly covered Orientalism in class, not enough for me to make an evaluation on how this article differs from our class discussion.

— Millsnaps (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC).