User:Baileyherman/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

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

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Transfeminism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

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

I chose to evaluate this article because I feel that it both relates to class material on the basis of all of politics being gendered, and also because the topic of including trans women in feminist agendas is incredibly interesting and important to me. My initial impression of it was that even within a niche subcategory of feminism, the article was dense with information and many subcategories. I was skeptical by the disclaimer that parts of the article may contain original research that needs to be proven correct or incorrect, which left me with a distrust of the information presented.

Evaluate the article

(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.)

The Lead section of this article is concise and informative as to what the article intends to outline. The introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, does not include information that is not present in the article's body, and does not attempt to persuade the reader towards any opinion.

The content of the article is relevant and up to date. It takes the stance of a mostly neutral point of view, acknowledging that there are different spheres of beliefs within the topic of Transfeminism and does its best to represent all of them. The article itself works on one of Wikipedia's equity gaps by representing the transgender community, a group often overlooked in society and especially within feminism.

This article's sources are generally reliable and up to date. It cites academic journals, articles, and books with trustworthy reputations. The references provided at the end are accessible to readers via their organization. The sources seem to be of high quality and allow for a deeper understanding of the topic of Transfeminism.

The writing quality and organization of the article are strong. The writing can be understood by a broad audience while remaining informative and academic. Niche terms and field jargon are defined so that readers can maintain understanding when technical words come into play. This being said, there are some terms and language that could be simplified to reach an even wider audience. The use of headings and subheadings are generally strong, however the article could benefit from more of these organizational tools in certain places. For example, the "Theory" section could benefit from being divided into sections to clarify and make more digestible.

The article includes very few images, and those that are there do very little to enhance the article and add information or understanding. It would be helpful to incorporate more images and to ensure that they are related to and work in tandem with the text.

The conversations on the Talk page mostly surround the topic of this article containing original research and that some of the language being unnecessarily advanced or niche. The article is part of several Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. Wikipedia discusses feminism and trans rights in more of a historical sense than we do in class. We focus on the way gender issues play into modern politics and impact almost every aspect of political life instead of the scholars behind trans-theory.

Overall, this is a strong Wikipedia article. There is a broad range of information covered, providing a comprehensive coverage of Transfeminism. Further, there is representation of diverse perspectives among reliable citations and mostly clear organization. To improve, I would clarify some of the technical language, and divide some of the longer sections to increase clarity.