User:CharlieJ385/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump painting -~ -CharlieJ385 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was assigned to be evaluated as part of the exercise. This article matters because it represents a famous painting by Joseph Wright. Joseph Wright of Derby is known as one of the first professional painters during the Industrial Revolution and his painting is an interesting representation of this shift. At first glance, I was impressed by the quality of the article by the writer. At the beginning, a proper introduction to the painting was included. Multiple content sections with various paragraphs, images, notes, references, and links were also included. -CharlieJ385 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Evaluate the article
The article sufficiently included an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly described the topic. The article also included a content section containing a description of the article's major sections. The lead is concise and does not include any information that is not present in the article. The content is relevant to the topic and seems up to date with its last edit in December 2021. All content belongs and none is missing. The article represents a painting that seems part of a larger category. The article also seems neutral with no heavy bias. I did not feel persuaded to lean in a certain direction when reading the article. All facts appear to be backed up by sources and I found the sources to be current and thorough. A wide variety of sources seemed to have been used and the links worked. I felt that the article was well written, well organized, and I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors. The images included supplemented the article, were well captioned, and appeared visually appealing. In the talk page, users included their remarks for the article such as reorganizing the page and supplementing with various sources. Some grammatical suggestions were also made, well before the most recent edits to the article were made. The peer reviewers seemed impressed with how well written the article was before critiques. I thought that this article was quite complete and contained a multitude of various sources to support the information. I might have included more about the current state of the painting including more detail in the present regarding its location. In all, this is a very well written article with a sufficient number of edits made by others. -CharlieJ385 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)