User:Booklover808/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Medusa (Leonardo)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article by clicking the "academic disciplines" link on the WikiEdu page. I then clicked on the links that I found interesting until I came across this one. I was particularly fascinated by "Medusa" because I think that it is such an interesting myth and I enjoy seeing how people, particularly artists, interpret the character and her story. This article is important because it follows one of Leonardo da Vinci's first works and since the work was lost, things like articles are all we have left of it. So, it is important to make sure that the articles that talk about this lost work are accurate and up to par.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of this Wikipedia article is not at the level that it should be. It only consists of two sentences and neither give a good description of the painting, in any sense. All that is stated is that it was one of da Vinci's earliest works and that it did not survive. Since there is not a lot known about this painting and since it does not exist anymore, I can understand how it would make sense that this article would have a smaller lead section, but I also think that it needs more than two sentences. The information that is provided about the work of art is lacking as well. There is no information about when it was made, when it was lost, what the creation process was like. There are only two sections in this article, and while they do have a lot of content within each section, the information that is given is iffy. The first section is mainly comprised of a direct quote from a book about da Vinci. There is no specific citation anywhere and the information seems very out of place since there is no information given before or after the quote. There are more direct quotes in the second section, although the second section seems to have more original writing incorporated. There are two images in this article, and they also seem out of place. The first image is stated as being "probably a copy" and that feels unprofessional and out of place in an article about one of the most well known artists in the world. The second image has more information regarding its origins, but still has a sense of unprofessionalism to it. The talk page of this article is very small too, which leads me to believe that not a lot of people have tried to add to this article. Overall, I think there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot could be added to this article. I think that the information that was provided is good information to know, but it should not be the only information provided.