User:Glak12/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: San Giobbe Altarpiece
 * I have chosen this article because I really enjoy studying altarpieces, specifically complex ones like this one with many different components that can reveal a lot about the patron and their desires. I've learned about the San Giobbe Altarpiece very briefly and would like to learn more about it. Another reason I picked this article is because the current Wikipedia article is very sparse and limited, so it will be pleasing if I can add more to it.

Lead

 * Guiding question


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The entire lead is very short and concise sentence (overly-concise). It explicitly tells the reader many important aspects of the painting: medium, artist, year, current location. I definitely think it include more, specifically its patron, explicitly stating the church it was originally placed in (some people may not know that it is indicated within the title). It could also potentially include a more general statement of the subject of the altarpiece ("The Virgin and child flanked by..."). The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All of the content discussed is relevant to the topic, however, it is relatively limited. I am not sure if this is indicative of our current state of knowledge of this piece. It definitely is lacking information, specifically regarding its commission, its movement throughout the years, etc. The description of the subject itself is also very weak.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and does not indicate a bias towards a specific viewpoint. It remains pretty sparsely reviewed and edited, only by a few different users.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
In its current state, the article is well-organized. The sections correctly indicate what is written within that section. The flow is easy to follow; short, concise and clear sentences.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The main image on the top right is in image of the whole painting. There also is an image of a specific detail within the image, the 3 musician angels; I wouldn't say that this adds any substance to the article because it does not go into deep description/analysis of the meaning of the angels or their role within the painting. Images could definitely be used in a better way to enhance the understanding of the painting. The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There is no conversation occurring in the talk page. Last edit was in May 2016 and I cannot view what the contributor said. It is part of the WikiProject Visual arts and has been rated a Start-class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is underdeveloped, I would describe it as having the bare bones necessary. It provides a minimal explanation of the basic aspects of the painting and its history. The article can be improved in many ways:

(1) Discuss more details about the subject

(2) Discuss the patronage

(3) Discuss the movement of the painting throughout history (why was it removed from the church?)

(4) Discuss the architecture within the painting

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: