User:Abycam/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.


 * Name of article: Mineral painting
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because it was one of the subcategories of art history and I am interested in the process of art restoration.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, introduces the process of mineral painting/ Keim's process/ stereochromy.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

In a way yes because there is only one section called "Keim's Process".


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Provides some background on what was used before this process was invented and perfected.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Very concise, gets right into the information.

Lead evaluation
The lead is short and sweet and gets right into the article without having any unnecessary information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, it explains what mineral painting is and how to do it.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

It is up-to-date as best as it can be fore a process that is not widely used anymore.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There doesn't seem to be any content that does not belong and as someone who is not familiar with the process it doesn't seem like I am missing anything.

Content evaluation
Content is good, no unnecessary information, gets the information to you quickly.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes, just explains the steps needed, not really anything to have an opinion on.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No positions.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No viewpoints.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No persuasion.

Tone and balance evaluation
Neutral article that presents scientific information.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, multiple published sources used to backup information.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Some more that other but overall yes.


 * Are the sources current?

Current in the same way the article is up-to-date, as best as it can be fore a process that is not widely used anymore


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

All the links work and there is only one the cites a book that is not available through a link to an online PDF.

Sources and references evaluation
Good amount of sources that are all relevant and reliable.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Very easy to read and gets right to the information.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not any obvious ones and I didn't see any minor ones.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Has the main section that is a bulleted list.

Organization evaluation
Organized very well and is easy to follow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No images are used but the article could benefit from some.


 * Are images well-captioned?

No images.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

No images.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

No images.

Images and media evaluation
No images are used but the article could greatly benefit from some especially because it is explaining a visual process.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

No conversations on this talk page.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

It is a Stub-class visual arts article and is part of the WikiProject Visual Arts.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I don't believe we've ever talked about this particular method of painting but we have talked about similar techniques, mostly in the context of how they stand the test of time and the condition they are in now, where this article is strictly talking about the process of making.

Talk page evaluation
Not much on the talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The article has one of the lowest ratings.


 * What are the article's strengths?

It gets the reader the information quickly and concisely.


 * How can the article be improved?

Provide more visuals of the process itself and of works made with this process.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Fairly well developed, could use just a bit more.

Overall evaluation
Good article if you are strictly looking for the information but not if you want to dive deeper into this process.

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Mineral painting