User:Bmbrizuela/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: History of art criticism (History of art criticism)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because I felt that it connects to my Native American Art History class. In the class we do examine different arts, and I would like to learn more about art criticism.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the lead defines art criticism and gives brief examples of the different categories in which art is evaluated. Yes, the lead does describe the major sections and also the minor sections. No, all information in the lead is described at one point throughout the article. The definition is referenced multiple times throughout the article. It's concise because the author further defines art criticism as a study and explains how it is different from similar topics. It very good background information and does not come across as too much.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, all the content is very informational. The author discusses the methods various art critics use to critique. Then the author introduces some of the major art critics throughout history and explains their methods and discoveries. The author delivers this in chronological order in a timeline. The content is mostly up to date, the references are dated with 1995-2012. No, all content that was forecasted in mentioned and present. Also, content that is listed. is very informational and relevant to the topics, Nothing should be removed, but it should be cited.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, all the content is presented in a neutral tone. Even if there is a bias, it is presented as information of that time. No, all claims are balanced and neutral in their purpose towards the overarching topic. I think there should be more information on how Art criticism is viewed today, and how critics today examine art vs. in the past. No, it presents the information neutrally, the only tone I picked up was the significance of this topic. Which I think is necessary.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * No, there are ghost statements in the lead and some topic paragraphs. A lot of the paragraphs do not cite sources. The author summarizes information in paragraphs but there are no cited sources. However, I'm not sure there should be a cited source for each sentence when writing for Wikipedia. Yes, the sources are cited in detail or they have link to the respective source. For the most part yes, they range from 1995-2012, this is good enough for me, but I would like to know more recent information. Yes, they do! and they are scholarly.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, the article is easy to read and well written. Needs citations. There are some terms that were hard for me to understand because there was no definition of them. Other than that the article is easy to read. Yes there are a couple sentences in which there is a missing word. Yes, the topics are well-organized and informational.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, they provide context of some of the art being evaluated and of what early art historians and critics looked like. Yes, they all are with as much information as possible. No they don't meet the copy right guidelines because it has been given a c-class rating visually. Yes, they correspond with the sectioned topics.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * Conversations are from Wikiproject History and WikiProject visual arts. It has received a c-class rating in both categories. Other conversation commend the references as being working and reliable. Yes, I explained in the above question. It explains the rating and thanks contributors who have offered edits.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The overall status is a c-class article. It is clear it is not done correctly and need improvements. Some strengths are the definitions and explanation of topics. Also, the topics are organized correctly, and there are good articles for more information. I do feel I have learned more about the topic. It can be improved by adding more information about the evolution of art criticism and not so much art history. It also severely needs citations for paragraphs because they are ghost statements. It is well developed but needs the improvements above and more edits.


 * 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?

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: