User:Esther Zhao210/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:!Women Art Revolution

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I'm intrigued by the title of this article with its focus on women's influences and particularly how it changes over time as a revolution to film industry. Meanwhile, this article is marked as C-class, which means it is in need of further evaluations and checks to meet the criteria. Therefore, with the much space it provided for me to explore, I'm interested in evaluating the potential improvements in this article.

Evaluate the article
!Women Art Revolution

This article introduces the documentary film directed by Lynn Hershman Leeson with the historical transitions in feminist art movement.

Lead section

 * The leading section is brief with direct pointing into the general depiction of this film. However, it is a little bit too general or even cursory to define the target of this film.
 * Rather than briefly summarizes the introduction as "It tracks the feminist art movement over 40 years through interviews with artists, curators, critics, and historians." . I recommend adding more detailed sentimental consequences to the first part since the film focused on how women'a art was either ignored or blamed in the earlier years. Therefore, emotional elements are essential in describing the topic of this film.

Content

 * This article's content is well-divided into parts that could be used to describe a documentary film.
 * All parts in content are related to this documentary film but I think it would be better to add more parts to the content column for a better understanding. For example, it would be more informative to add the production aspect with description of the film's music, editing, and interviews.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is a little bit leaning into praising the film in how it represents feminist movement.
 * In the Synopsis, I would rather delete the sentence "The work these feminist artists were creating at the time were very different from works shown or talked about at the time." This is not a summary of the film's content but rather a more personal view of the film's expressions.
 * The article only described some of the interviewee's positions or opinions on their works being ignored by the public. I consider it would be better to delete the detailed argument in the synopsis or add the outline of all interviewee's arguments, so that readers wouldn't be lead into favoring particular perspective of the film.

Sources and References

 * The secondary sources provided by the article include the archived film reviews which are strong sources for evaluating the topic.
 * The sources might be a bit limited and narrow in scope. They only concentrate on the reception and the reviewing of this film. The article could include the historical background resources related to the women art movement aimed by the topic.
 * Sources are from the time period from 2017 to 2018. It would be better to add more recent and updated sources.
 * Some cited sources are retrieved from the archive and focus on writers who are not famous with various works.
 * All external links work well.

Organization and writing quality

 * The Synopsis part is a bit disorganized without continuous flow of writing structure. To be more specific, for the first two paragraphs, it generally described the content of the documentary, while in the third paragraph, there's a sudden digression from the summary to an exposition of the origin of the film's title. Meanwhile the last 2 paragraphs of the Synopsis again mention details of the film. After browsing through the Synopsis, readers might be confused due to the cursory structure. I would recommend a re-arranging of the paragraphs.
 * In between the Cast and Synopsis, I think there could be a space for summarization of each interviewee's statement in the film.
 * There's no grammatical or spelling errors in the article.

Images and Media

 * The article includes the cover picture of the film.
 * The image is a low-quality one which is hard to capture details.
 * Only one cover picture is not enough to give strong impression of the film. So I recommend to add some screenshots of the film to the page.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Two student editors clarified the copyright information of this article.
 * From the conversation, I recognize that the article is copy-pasted from the movie's press kit without a Copyvio, and another student edited it to avoid further violations.
 * This article is rated C-class film article as one of the Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments.
 * Wikipedia discusses this topic in a more informative and professional way. Instead of including more personal views and discussions in class, the article gives a more through explanation on the background and techniques of the topic.

Overall impressions

 * The article focused on a notable film that has been somehow marginalized by mainstream films. The resources are rather limited and the description is a bit incomplete. Based on the criteria of a good Wikipedia article, it needs to be correct in details.
 * Although there are imperfections, this article is good at pointing out the topic's influences on the art movement. And the listing of the interviewees in this film is integrated.
 * This article has a lot space for improvements, including the organization of the texts, the adding of more historical sources, and the enhancement in image presentations.
 * I would assess this article as "underdeveloped".