User:Amb015/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Yayoi Kusama

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 I was surprised to see Kusama's name on a B-class article. I've seen, researched, and followed Kusama's artwork before, given her notoriety in the art world today. Being one of the most famous living artists, I was incredibly surprised to see that Kusama's article was not rated as well as I would have thought. I wanted Kusama, being an asian female artist and traditionally underrepresented in the art world, to be properly represented on Wikipedia in all her fame. It's important to raise the experiences and voices of minority and marginalized groups on Wikipedia, where they are traditionally underrepresented. Kusama's somewhat underdeveloped article, as least in comparison to her male counterparts, represents how women are less represented on Wikipedia. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was very brief in comparison to many of the other Wikipedia articles I've seen, but had pretty relevant and important sections. The images that accompanied the text was relevant and useful, however, the information didn't seem to go too in depth on some sections about her artwork.

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.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Yes, yes, no, fairly concise
 * 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Overall the lead was very well developed, and achieved the goal of introducing the most important and holistic information in the first few paragraphs. The lead had an introductory sentence that was clear, and described the most important information of who Yayoi Kusama is as an artist, and describes what she is known for. For any given reason, Kusama's occupation is what makes her notorious, so the introductory sentence did a great job of pointing out the most important few details. The lead also introduces all the topics the article later dives into, including her biography, inspiration, and famous artworks, so it's is a good descriptor of the article's major sections, and doesn't include information that isn't later further elaborated on. The article isn't long, but it covers a lot of topics, so although the lead isn't super concise length wise, it says all that needs to be said in proportionally very few words. It was concise enough, but there are a few areas where information that was too detailed for a lead could have been removed to improve conciseness.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Yes, no, yes, yes
 * 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?

The article's content is relevant, and speaks elaborately on her life journey, through her early life before her recognition as an artist, as well as all the eras of the art that lead to her fame today. There wasn't too much weight on any one topic, and each of her known art mediums was given about equal representation and information in proportion to how relevant they were to Kusama. The same can be said for the article's coverage on her notable exhibitions. All the content on the article was relevant and related to Kusama in some way, and no section was distracting from the overall article. However, some of the content is not up to date regarding more recent exhibitions in the lsit of exhibitions section from about 2020 onward. Some exhibitions, such as those of hers in Washington DC and Germany over the past few years have not been updated on the list. The article definitely deals with Wikipedia's equity gap because Kusama is an underrepresented population on Wikipedia, a woman artist. Kusama is globally well-known, yet her Wikipedia page is underdeveloped in comparison to those of her male counterparts. Although her article definitely deals with the equity gap on Wikipedia, the underdeveloped nature of Kusama's article, despite being one of the most famous and acclaimed living artists in the world, shows the evident underrepresentation of women within Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Yes, no, no, yes somewhat, no
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Overall, there was no distinct evidence of bias within the article, or claims that took a particular position. The article did a good job of attributing any claims that were somewhat like opinions, such as art critiques, to notable sources or individuals, rather than writing them as self-claims or opinions. The article did include minority viewpoints in some way, since often Kusama's own experience and viewpoint can be considered the minority view. Personally, Kusama had a lot of personal experience with mental illness and racism and sexism during her time as an artist, and while the article does mention such aspects of her life and career, the article does not place a huge emphasis on her personal experiences.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

No, yes, yes, not really, yes, yes
 * 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?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Overall, Kusama's article has some great sources within it. Often, notable scholarly presses are referenced, like the MIT press, and Guggenheim. These sources are peer-reviewed and reflect professional research. All the sources were recent enough, or at least began from when Kusama had risen to power, and fully related to the content in the article. However, the article does also place a heavy reliance on news sources. There are dozens of sources from the LA Times, the Financial Times, and many other news publications. These could definitely be replaced in some way by scholarly sources because there are abundances of scholarly reviews of Kusama's work, but the news sources do uniquely have something scholarly ones don't: interviews with Kusama herself. There were a few sources within the many on Kusama's page however, that had almost no merit, and lead to either shut down, sketchy, or entirely unaccredited sites. One site in particular was extremely opinionated and biased, labeling Kusama as a "man-hater".

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Yes, no, yes
 * 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?

The article was well-broken up. None of the sections seemed excessive or irrelevant, and covered the necessary information fairly concisely. All the information on the page was also under the correct sections, and the transition from section to section made sense, starting from her biography, then moving onto her different art forms, and lastly her notable exhibitions. Overall, the writing and organization in the article was well done, and flows nicely.

Images and Media
yes, yes, yes, yes
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The article was very full of images, all of which I found were very helpful in providing visual representation of Kusama's art. Reading written descriptions of visual art may not transfer a full description of the artwork, so the images are very helpful to readers in interpreting the visual affect of Kusama's art. All the images had captions that usually explained location, name, and date of the art shown when relevant, so there was no confusion. They were also typically placed right by the section of the article that had the relevant information about that image in particular, so the layout was fitting. Additionally, all the images are public, including the main image of Kusama's face, which is actually an image of her wax model, since that is the only publicly available image of Kusama.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

Not much conversation, B-class and yes
 * 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?

There aren't any real conversation occurring on Kusama's article. One user posed a question to the community asking if they could use an image of a wax model of Kusama as the main picture, since all actual photos of Kusama are privately owned, but besides that, the talk page has very little activity. The article is currently a part of numerous WikiProjects, including WikiProject Women, WikiProject Sculpture, WikiProject Visual Arts, WikiProject Biography/ Arts and Entertainment, WikiProject Japan/Biography, WikiProject Women Artists, and WikiProject Photography. It is B-rated for all these WikiProjects except for WikiProject Japan/Biography, for which it has a C rating.

Overall impressions
Overall, the article could use a few edits to be updated with recent information and some sources need to be changed, but it is holistically well written, and contains relevant information. The article's strengths are its thoroughness on the topic of Kusama's biography, and its usage of images. However, some sections, especially those explaining her inspiration and art forms definitely need to be updated and go more in depth on the information. There also need to be changes to the sources, since some references were entirely unreliable, and some should be replaced by scholarly sources. The article is somewhat underdeveloped, since the article is definitely very brief, and could include more elaboration, given the hundreds of works Kusama has done.
 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting