User:128.92.68.211/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Everything in the article I choose seemed to be on topic, all relating to the topic at least, but I was slightly distracted by the tone of writing. It felt almost opinionated, the type of writing style like someone has an opinion but they're not saying it and it all ends up feeling very passive aggressive. Everything is in date and seems to be updated regularly if the information changes. To my knowledge it is all correct. The only thing I would change would be the slightly passive aggressive tone. The article is both neutral and not, as I said before its like the opinion is not being stated, so while it is neutral there are certain words that seem too flowery or too definite, like 'gorgeous' and 'highest work'. I could be reading into it a bit too much though. I'm not sure there are really multiple view points to be represented beyond opinions on the artworks themselves. The citations work and lead to website that seem rather credible, though I only skimmed and flipped through without going into depth on their resources. As far as I can tell they are unbiased. On the talk page there are a lot of conversations actually, more then I expected. They consist of copyright debates over the paintings included, opinions on the works and even small debates about which artists are the best. The article is a part of the WikiProject: Visual Arts. The discussion seems to be how we discussed them in class.


 * It would have helped to know which article you were evaluating. CWLivingston (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)