User:Jalcar13/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Art history

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.)

I chose this article because it is relevant to the class and the page seems to provide plenty of information and might be a good example of a strong wikipedia page. At first glance the page look to provide plenty of sources and long content list.

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.)

The lead section states the topic clearly and provides a brief definition and overview. The content provided includes history, methods, a timeline, historical figures that pertain to the subject, movements, organizations. All topics that are relevant to the subject. The tone reads neutral from the start, it does not contain any claims and does not seem to be biased toward a particular position or persuade the readers to favor a certain point. From a quick check, the information provided does seem to be backed up by reliable secondary sources such as Oxford University Press. The page also provides a list of further readings which include publishings from Cornell University Press, Cambridge University Press and Yale University Press. From the links checked, all of them worked and all but one were credible sites and publishings. One of the links provided within the sources appear to be a random website that happens to be incomplete. The link does state it was retrieved in 2010 so it is a little dated. There is plenty of other credible citations that have retrieval dates of 2018-2019. The content was easy to read, it was organized in a comprehensible manner and is broken down into sections which made it easier to find a specific part of the reading. The images provided are of works of art or historical figures which make sense given the topic. The images are all captioned and are placed in an organized manner that does not distract from the reading. The only text in the talk page is information about the page (it has a B rating) and one discussion which is titled draft outline. The discussion states the specific part of the page that needs work, in this case it states that the scholars section needs more information and feel free to review and revise it. Overall, this page does provide a comprehensive definition and outline of the topic, the layout is easy to follow and does provide credible sources. Improvements that could be made are update a few sources/links and provide more detailed information for some of the content. This page is for the most part compete, a bit more information would make this wikipedia page an extremely credible source. ~