User:Colezimm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderer_above_the_Sea_of_Fog

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because my brother has this painting and I wanted to know more about it. My first impression was that there was a lot more information than I was thinking there would be.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The first sentence describes the main points of the painting and provides some context. It also accurately describes what the next sections will be about. There is no extra information that isn't included in the article. My only problem would be the section on how the painting was received because it seemed almost longer than the actual section in the article.

Content: The content of the article is on topic and up to date. The article does not cover Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral and there are no claims that appear heavily biased. The article doesn't try to persuade.

Sources and References: All the facts are backed up by reliable sources. The sources are up to date and current. There aren't too many diverse authors.The links work.

Organization and writing quality: The article is concise and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. My only suggestion would be to have the lead section set up the following sections in the same order that they are arranged in the article.

Images and Media: The image was really important for this article because it is about this painting. The image is clear and good quality. I would have liked there to be a second image portraying the artist as well.

Talk page discussion: There are discussion about the content of the article and the writing style. The most recent comment is from 22 days ago. There was a lengthy argument about whether or not to include the painter's political ideology and how that influenced his work. From what I saw there were multiple authors working on this and contributing to different topics.

Overall Impressions: I think this article is good. I have a few problems with how it is laid out because I think it could be a bit clearer, but overall I think it is generally well structured and not underdeveloped. It provides a wide range of information about this painting and I enjoyed reading it.