User:Munashe822/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

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

Name of article: Womanism
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose to evaluate this article because I though it would be interesting to look at and because it is something I have always been curious about learning more of

Guiding questions: The Lead includes an introductory sentence that defines the word womanism and the people who have coined the term and why. By looking at the Lead you are not able to see that the article will be including but when you read the content box you get a clearer picture of what the article will explore. The Lead includes a note on what the article will explore and a key author who coined the term and the way that the term has evolved and has been interpreted.

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?

Overall, the lead is okay. It could be improved by giving a brief description of the major sections of the article.

Guiding questions: The context of the article is quite relevant to the topic because it attempts to explain the topic in great detail. The article is not up to date because the topic of womanism has been further explored and critiqued since this article was created. Everything that was in the article added to the topic in one way or another for exam the part about spirituality connected really well to the critiques about womanism. The article does address historically underrepresented groups because it womanism is seen as term that includes the ethnicity and race of the person.

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?

Guiding questions
The article is quite neutral because it does not present womanism as being something that is better than feminism is just presents it as a theory. I do no see any claims that are heavily biased in the article the author took a neutral stance. The author does not seem to try and sway the readers in one direction or another they just present the information.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None at all.
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?

Guiding questions: The article is backed up by credible journals as well as books that take a look at the topic of womanism. The sources were very thorough and they were from a very diverse group of publishers and journals. The authors of the sources came from different points of views and a diverse spectrum. The links that i clicked on worked really well.

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?

Guiding questions
I found the article well organized, however there were some structural issues with the articles. There were also some grammatical errors.

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?

Guiding questions
The article had some images but they did not add anything extra to the the understanding of the topic. The images are well-captioned and they seem to adhere to wikipedia copyright regulations.

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?

Guiding questions: I found the overall article very informative and quite well made. The article was able to tie everything together really well and everything flowed really well. I think that if the article was reread or peer reviewed the structural issues would be solved. The article was really well- developed and I learned quite a bit about womanism.

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?

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 — ~~~~