User:JoFraDe/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: Alchemy in Art and Entertainment
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article in order to assess the prevalence of many ideas of the late 17th century today despite being no longer practiced in serious scientific fields.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, although it's slightly vague, simply stating that Alchemy is present in many artistic media. It could specify perhaps why this relationship is so long-standing.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The majority of the article's sections are mentioned. However, there is little mention of film or comics and cartoons in the lead, despite them making up significant sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. However, it mentions Terry Pratchett, who makes up a relatively insignificant portion of the actual article, making the mention seem unnecessary.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, yet contains enough information to be substantial. It is neither too short nor too long.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead to this article is excellent in its length and amount of detail. However, there are multiple extraneous details pertaining to specific sections while other sections have merely a passing mention. I would recommend balancing the space which each section takes up in the overall lead. For example, Terry Pratchett is mentioned by name despite not being particularly relevant to the article as a whole, while comics, cartoons, and film are not elaborated on.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. It provides many examples and explains different genres' roots in alchemy as well as their roles past and present.
 * Is the content up-to-date? I think so. It covers artistic works ranging across different genres and time periods, while providing a large selection of examples.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing is missing, but the section on films lacks the list of works featuring alchemical motifs which each other section possesses.

Content evaluation
The article provides many examples, sorted by medium and time period. The choice of separating works from different time periods into their own sections is excellent, as it allows the article to mention many of the similar characteristics of alchemy's inclusion at specific times and in specific media. However, I would like the article to possess short descriptions of the presence of alchemy in each work, explaining its attitude towards and treatment of alchemy. Additionally, lists of different attitudes towards alchemy in art are provided for many larger sections. However, these distinctions are not used. They could possibly be employed in order to explain the general attitudes possessed by each individual work. The content covers both the present day and the historical role of alchemy in art. However, the article on film could possess more specificity, although it does explain the traits of many films featuring alchemy.

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 article is for the most part neutral. For example, when describing literary alchemy, the article does not discuss its relative merits relative to other attitudes about alchemy. On the whole, there is very little in the argument's subject matter that is controversial, so it is generally able to avoid issues of non-neutrality.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources cited in this article are reliably cited with regards to historical context. However, with the absence of both descriptions of each work and citations relating to its use of alchemy, each referenced work requires more justification for its presence within the article. The sources primarily relate to academic books or journal articles relating to art history and art criticism, so they seem thorough. Most of the sources are not online, so very few links are available. However, the links seem reliable. No source listed is from the past decade, so the article may require updates to reflect novel art historians' discoveries.

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
As I have written earlier, the article's sections are generally solid and concise. The use of lists makes the article generally quite readable, and the spelling and grammar are sound. However, the section on film is not particularly well-written or organized, not relying on lists or historical eras, and the sections of comics and video games are made up almost entirely of lists. Some information regarding history of the media's relationship with alchemy would be greatly appreciated.

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
There exist three images. They are all individually captioned well, but the captioning is inconsistent. Each image appears to adhere to copyright regulations, with each image belonging to the common domain. The images are not visually unappealing, but they don't add much to the article's general layout. I would like some other images of visual media representing alchemy to add to the lists of examples.

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
The majority of the talk page is made up of users suggesting additions to the lists. Very few seem interested in improving the framework of the list, and many are simply adding items to the list due to simple mentions of alchemy. There exists one major issue, in which a file previously used on the page was not free to use, but it has been resolved. In short, there isn't much constructive discussion going on at this page's talk page.

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
As a whole, while this article provides much raw information, it doesn't go out of its way to explain what it presents. I'd like more sections like the one on "literary alchemy," but for other archetypes of alchemy-based art. On the whole, while the article is complete, it could be much more thorough. I'd like to see more than just simple mentions of works; this page would benefit greatly from explanations of each work's relation to alchemy: nominal, thematic, literal, etc. Overall, the article is not bad, but it isn't great either.

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: