User:FaridaElsefary/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Early Anatolian animal carpets

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.)


 * 1) This topic is new to me, as I have never studied carpets before
 * 2) There is a sufficient number of pictures to support the article and help the reader visualize the content
 * 3) There is not enough focus on Anatolian carpets, a lot on carpets of the same design or those influenced by the Anatolian examples, as well as animal carpets in renaissance painting; I was not sure how relevant

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.)


 * 1) Lead section: it is concise and does not include something that is not presented in the article. Introductory sentence highlights the article's aim/theme
 * 2) Content: I think there is a lot of weight placed on animal carpets in Renaissance painting, almost the same weight as what the core of the article should be - the early Anatolian animal carpets. Moreover, I believe it would have helped to discuss the following points as different subsections of the article: (1) preceding carpets and their influence on Anatolian carpets, (2) the workshops that produced the carpets and who it was produced for, (3) the stylistic reasons behind the use of the colors, why animals and not vegetal motifs (for example), and how did the environment in which this was produced influence the production of the carpets. Some of this was discussed briefly in discussion of the few surviving examples, but having an overview section before contextualizing it with different carpets would help the reader create a pattern and notice differences/similarities. The article jumps right in to the topic without solid background information.
 * 3) Tone and balance: the article is neutral and no specific viewpoints are presented more than others.
 * 4) Sources and references: a lot of the sources presented are from museum or exhibition websites, almost as much sources dedicated to scholarly articles, which I think could be improved and could provide a more solid base to the writer's description. The scholarly articles used are not very recent as well.
 * 5) Organization and writing quality: the writing is clear and easy to read. However, there could have been more sections as discussed earlier. Most importantly, there was no clear conclusion to the article.
 * 6) Images and Media: meets criteria