User:Harrowh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Baptism of Christ (Piero della Francesca)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I love this painting, and I wanted to pick an article that I knew something about.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION. The main sentence is clear and concise. It is not as precisely organized as it could be; the point of Wikipedia is information, not elegant writing. It does include the controversy over the date of the painting's creation, which is good.

CONTENT. All of the content in this article is relevant to the the topic. The sourcing is a little old, but the painting is not new. I was surprised that there was no content about Italy requesting returns of its national treasures, but this painting was acquired legally, as far as I know, and perhaps it was not specifically mentioned.

ORGANIZATION. The organization is a little wonky. It is a short article, but if I were writing it I would organize it into several sections: history, construction/composition, symbolism, and timeline controversy. All of the subjects are mixed together.

IMAGES. Yes, this article contains an image of the painting. It follows all of the copyright rules, insofar as those apply to a painting that is several hundred years old. The image is of good quality and is well-captioned.

TALK PAGE. This page only has one comment: someone speculating that the painting is fake. No one chose to dignify this with comment. This article is a part of two Wikiprojects: Visual Arts, and London. It is rated as start-class and low-importance.

OVERALL. This article is basically a stub; it's got the basics but not a whole lot more. It's very clear and concise, and it's neutral, but there is a lot more information about this painting that is missing. I would say that it is underdeveloped. I'm glad I chose it for this exercise - there are many criteria to consider, and I would have become confused if I had selected a more complicated article - but I would definitely say that it is underdeveloped.