User:BellaFoxDonnaBurn/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.

Crip: [[Crip (disability term)]]
I used the community understanding and academic theory of Crip Time in my dissertation. I would like to create a more robust understanding of the term Crip on wikipedia to help others find out more about this topic and how it can be used within activism and academia.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- While the first sentence is a good starting point, it moves into a quote and lacks any details about how or why the term crip is being reclaimed.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- There is no summary of the sections of the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- The lead seems to have similar details as those found in the article, in relation to the history of the word crip.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is concise, thought I would was to concise. It lacks details needed to let the reader know what they will find in the article. As well, the lack of details about what can be found in the article is lacking.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- The history and purpose are the only sections. Both are relevant to the topic, but there are more sections that could be added.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The sources bounce around from the early 2010's to 2019. Overall not bad in terms of recentness.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is mention of 'cripping' as using crip as theory or a means to understanding. This section could be made separate from the History section.
- How reclaiming or why reclaiming happens is not detailed well here. There are links to other wikipedia pages (reclaiming and queer) to expand on this topic, but I don't believe there is enough context within the article to give context as to why the term crip is being reclaimed.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, but is also reads monotone.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- This article focuses on history and mentions the harm of the term crip as well as the reclaiming so I think it stays unbaised. It even mentions that not all PWD use or are reclaiming the word crip.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Lack of details about the process of reclaiming and how crip can be used to view situations from a disability perspective (theory)
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, even though it frames crip as a derogatory term that is being reclaimed it doesn't suggest that it should or should not be used in a particular way.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- There are a few sources I am not familiar with, but the articles themselves appear good, though I would need to explore the journals themselves for its reliability as a source.
Are the sources current?
- Within the past 10 years. I will not that some of the older articles focus on the history which i don't think it a problem as they are used to build on the use of crip within literature.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- there are three sources that do not appear to work (# 8, 1 &2) Sources 1 &2 are books so the links might not go to an online source but to a general search for finding the books themselves.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The article of written well overall, but I dislike the change in reading level found when switching to a quote.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- None that I noticed.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Given the briefness of the article the sections make since, but the sections box is missing and the article overall could help by being expanded.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No Images
Are images well-captioned?
- NA
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- NA
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- NA

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- NA
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Yes, it is part of Wikiproject Disability and has a rating of Start Class.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- NA

What is the article's overall status?
- Good research for starting a page on disability terms like crip. I agree with the rating of start class as the page is missing key details and could be expanded.
What are the article's strengths?
- The history sections given a good, if quick, overview of the word crip. Showing where the word came from, its development over time and some of the different ways the word it used.
How can the article be improved?
- Yes, the article could use less quotes and more details on reclaiming and use of crip theory.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- I would say the article is underdeveloped. It is a great start and would have taken a lot of work by the people who worked on it to get the context to where it is.

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 — ~~~~