User:AleaLondon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anti-monumentalism < hyperlink

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 this article because it was one of the options under contemporary art. It seems important because of the relationship it creates between art and authoritative social forces. My preliminary impression was that it could use more images or visual representations.

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 introductory sentence does explain what the subject is generally about. There is some ambiguity with the word "tendency" though. I feel as though this may not be the right word for this context. This section gives a brief summary and introduces the other sections. It is concise and doesn't include any extra information. This article's content leans towards the historical context and examples of different artists. It could use more in the "meaning" section to help the reader understand why this movement is important. This content does seem up to date, it was last updated in 2021. This art movement seeks to represent the historically non-elitist society. An example that this article gives is Jewish people during the Holocaust reacting to Nazi monuments. It describes an action or performance of rejecting the elitist monuments. The article does seem biased based on certain descriptive words that it uses. While the sources were retrieved recently, the sources themselves do not seem recent. There is a large selection of sources though. The links for the sources work. The article itself could use some better organization and descriptions. The article only includes two images, and they are not captioned well. The images do however relate to the information directly next to them. There is very little conversation on the talk page about this topic. This article is rated C on the quality scale. It was a part of a few different Wiki projects. Overall, I am not very impressed with this article. While the opening statement is good, it could be better. After this the article just completely falls off. This article needs improvement in the content sections. I would not consider this article well developed.