User:Daylightandmidnightrain/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Old Man with a Gold Chain

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 because there is little information in it and a lot of room for improvement.

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.)

For Old Man with a Gold Chain, I was distracted by the three copies listed because they weren’t put in terms that I necessarily understood. A majority of the information is about the copies and who owns them, but they could have been worded better. The paragraph below that list is equally as confusing because they don’t feel like full sentences. The only source listed is from 1915 so I would argue that it’s out of date. There is quite a lot of information that could be added. For starters, there needs to be more than one source. The Art Institute of Chicago’s page for the painting has more information and more sources than this Wikipedia page does. For a painter as famous as Rembrandt, there should be more information about him in the article. The way the article is written, one would think that the painting was done by an insignificant, unknown artist. There is very little on the background of the painting or on Rembrandt or on the subject matter. Painting techniques could also be added in. There is a lot of room for improvement.

I believe Old Man with a Gold Chain is neutral. There are no biased claims because it really just describes the painting and talks about who owns the copies of it. However, practically every viewpoint is underrepresented because there’s very little information provided. The two links for provided work. The first link, and the only one used as a footnote source, just says word for word what the Wikipedia article does, which the training advises against doing. While it does reference that source, I’m not sure how reliable the reference is since it is out of date. The source seems unbiased because it just lists who is in possession of the copies of this painting and doesn’t make any biased claims.

There are no conversations for the Old Man with a Gold Chain talk page. The article is rated Stub-class. It is part of the Chicago, Visual-arts, and Netherlands WikiProjects. There’s no discussion for Old Man with a Gold Chain, but we’ve talked about the importance of using the talk pages for articles.