User:Clenakev/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Eufrasia Burlamacchi

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 since it's part of Italian renaissance art, which is related to our course topic on Venetian Renaissance Art and it had very little information on it. This article matters because it highlights a woman artist, which is rather rare in discussion for this period. My preliminary impression is that the article is rather bare and is not entirely in line with the Wikipedia guidelines for a good article yet.

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.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It has quite concise with very little further information elaborated.

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.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it is on a historical figure.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is very little content available, however as mentioned in the legacy, that is credited to a lack of documentation about her life. Potential areas to explore would be her family since there is some emphasis on this. However, most importantly, there is no mention of her particular contributions to the art of manuscript illumination or specific examples of her works. Rather, the article speaks more so about the school she was a part of as a whole.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it deals with a female artist, which is especially underrepresented for this time period.

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.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are not.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * There are no controversies in this article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

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.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, very few are.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, they are not.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are current, some are rather old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They are written by multiple nationalities and genders.
 * 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.)
 * Yes, I did find further journal articles that could be used instead of random websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not see any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one image is featured, but it does help.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No, it is very vague.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * This is unclear.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, it is.

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.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as Stub-class, and is a part of Biography: Arts and Entertainment, Women's History, and Women Artists.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is quite bare and needs significant work to represent the topic.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * In terms of structure and grammar, it is well written.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It needs further content on the art of the artist and better academic sources used, along with more citations which are lacking in many instances.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is quite underdeveloped.

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.