User:Fior57/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Archives of American Art

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the Archives of American Art since its an archive that I have visited before and I was interested in learning more about it. I initially thought the Wikipedia page was sparse compared to amount of information available I've seen in-person and on its website.

Lead section

 * While the lead section's introductory sentence is clear and concise, I think this section is overall mediocre.
 * The lead doesn't include descriptions about each major section, but it does include information that isn't present in the article. For example, the lead doesn't mention anything about the archive's administration. The lead also claims that the archive has collections with Lee Krasner, Marcel Breuer, John Singer Sargent, Winslow Homer, John Trumbull, and Alexander Calder, but these artists aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article, nor does it list any citations as evidence.

Content

 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Some of the content is out-of-date. For example, the archive's director needs to be updated and latest visitor stats were from 2009.
 * I think some of the sections could use more information and they aren't equally weighted. The exhibition and administration sections seem sparse compared to the collections.
 * Yes, the page does try to fill an equity gap by focusing on the papers of African American, Latino, and Latin American artists.

Tone and Balance

 * Yes, I think this article is neutral and doesn't seemed heavily biased toward a particular position. However, the minority or fringe viewpoints could use more representation (especially in the sections about African American, Latino, and Latin American artists).

Sources and References

 * Most of the sources are primary (annual reports, press releases, or webpages from the Archives of American Art), so the page could use more secondary or peer-reviewed sources.
 * I think primary sources are needed since they state important information such as the archive's staff, mission, location, and history. However, a few of these sources/the information listed are outdated and need to be updated.
 * The sources don't seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors or include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * The page could use more peer-reviewed articles about the archive's exhibit and collections.
 * The majority of the links work, but a few need to be reviewed.

Organization and writing quality

 * Yes, the article is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Overall, the article has good grammar and very few errors.
 * While the article is well-organized and includes the major parts about the archive, I personally would move the "Administration" section under "History" section. It feels odd to place the administration at the bottom since the two sections could overlap.

Images and Media

 * The article only includes three images - the archive's logo, a map of where the archive is located in Central Washington, D.C., and a map of where the archive is located in the United States. The article could use more in-person photos of the archive or provide examples of its collections/exhibits.
 * Yes, the images are well-captioned.
 * The logo is labeled as public domain, but the two map photos are CC BY-SA 2.0 and CC BY-SA 3.0.
 * The images are all within an infobox and not spread throughout the article.

Talk page discussion

 * The talk page discussion isn't lively and there's little talk about editing the page.
 * The article is rated as C-class and mid-importance, and it's part of the following Wikiprojects: Museums, Visual Arts, Libraries, United States, Archives of American Art, and Smithsonian Institution. The article is also part of the Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership and our class's Wiki Education Assignment.

Overall impressions

 * I would rate the article as mediocre since it has a solid amount of information about the archive, but many sections and sources need to be updated.
 * Regarding strengths, the article has a balanced tone and great explanation of its collections. I think the lead section could be great with a few tweaks as well.
 * The article could use more images, information in its exhibition and administration sections, and secondary sources.
 * I think the article is underdeveloped and needs more completeness.