User:Jxs2643/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: (link) Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this biographical article of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin because despite his reputation as an artistic pioneer of avant-garde pre-revolutionary art as well as Socialist Realism art, his Wikipedia page lacks both information and credible citations. I want to enhance the information that is already available on his page and also add significantly to it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

There is essentially no lead section on Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin's article, as there is only a single vague sentence stating that he was "an important Russian and Soviet painter and writer." While this sentence does clearly and concisely describe the article's topic, it fails to provide even context to educate the reader on Petrov-Vodkin's style, relevance, and impact on both prev-revolutionary avant-garde Russian art and his contributions to Socialist Realism. The lead also fails to elaborate even briefly on the article's main sections, which are his Biography and Legacy, and because the introductory sentence doesn't even hint at what will be further discussed in the sections, the reader is left with little to no information if they look merely at the lead. To understand more about Petrov-Vodkin, one would have to read the more extensive sections when ideally, the lead should provide enough brief information on the topic. Because the lead is so short and generalized, there is no information mentioned in this first sentence that is not present throughout the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The information present in the two major sections is relevant to the topic of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, and while not all of the content is derived from credible sources, there is no information included that is unrelated to the topic at all. The content of the article could be considered up-to-date because Petrov-Vodkin is a historical figure and not a continually-changing topic. At the same time, the last known edit of the article was in January of 2018, which means that while it is fairly recent in its content, more credible information could be included. There are aspects of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin's work and renown as a Russian artist that are missing in the article and could be included with credible sources in the future. At present, this article seems to have no issues with Wikipedia's equity gaps. In a way, this article does address topics related to historically underrepresented topics, as the art of the Soviet Union and pre-revolutionary Russia is often overlooked or not learned on a widespread scale.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

After reading the article thoroughly, the tone appears to be very neutral, as it neither excessively praises Petrov-Vodkin or goes out of its way to portray him in a positive light, nor does it convey him as a negative figure or "bad" artist of the Soviet Union. While the article certainly lacks credible citations, the information included in the sections is not biased and it aims simply to educate the reader on the facts of Petrov-Vodkin's life and work. For the most part, the article seems to focus on the biographical aspects of the artist's life, such as his birthplace, education, and legacy after death, rather than his artistic contributions and artistic style. There is some brief mention of Petrov-Vodkin's most famous work, Bathing of a Red Horse (1912), as well as his development of spherical perspective, but the article fails to develop even these areas thoroughly, and it makes no mention of any works beyond this single painting (many of which were also extremely renowned at the time) or the movements Petrov-Vodkin formed part of, such as pre-revolutionary avant-garde and Socialist Realism. These movements influenced by the rapidly-changing political climate had a profound impact on Soviet artists' style and paintings, so these areas are crucial to an article focused on Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin and must be included. Overall, the article is not biased and does not make any visible attempts to persuade the reader into a particular standpoint or position regarding Petrov-Vodkin.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

This article is definitely lacking sufficient credible sources, as there are only two references listed in the References section, and they are each only mentioned once throughout the article--once when the article mentions Petrov-Vodkin's 1912 Bathing of a Red Horse, and once in the last sentence that mentions a memorial museum displaying a selection of his works at his parents' home in his hometown of Khvalynsk. The first source is from the Tretyakov Gallery, the Russian museum that contains most of Petrov-Vodkin's works, but it is listed through a web archive and the website itself appears to be illegitimate and/or not updated (this requires verification, though). The second source appears to be more credible because it comes from the Art and Memorial Museum of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin, or the artist's parents' home in Khvalynsk where individuals can visit to view his home and a select few of his works that are displayed. The links function well and lead to the sources without a problem, but the main issue is the number of sources cited in the article. Around 90% of the facts included in the article are completely unverified and/or supported by a credible source, as there are only two sentences throughout the entire article that cite a source.


 * 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

Overall, the article is well-written and easy for the audience to read. There are no abrupt transitions, and all of the information is presented in a clear and concise way. There are a few punctuation errors that need to be corrected, but for the most part the quality of writing is acceptable. While the flow of the article is easy to follow, it is somewhat lacking in organization. There are only two major sections included in the article, the Biography and the Legacy, and the Biography section includes four subsections that include information on both Petrov-Vodkin's personal life and artistic contributions and style. In addition, the titles of the subsections are vague and misleading, as some of the information included in the subsection does not pertain to the title. To make the article more organized and easy to read, information pertaining to Petrov-Vodkin's personal life should be placed in the Biography section, information pertaining to his enduring reputation and legacy should remain in the Legacy section, and an additional section in between called "Artistic Works/Contributions" (something along these lines) that restricts itself to his work, artistic style, and artistic reputation should be added.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article includes a variety of different images that enhance the understanding of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin's style and artistic value. All of the images are digital photos of Petrov-Vodkin's own paintings (including a self-portrait placed at the top of the page), and there is a section titled "Works" at the bottom that provides access to many of his other paintings. The images included in the informational parts of the article are well-captioned and provide sufficient information in a concise way, while the images at the bottom of the "Works" section must be clicked on to view more information. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they are all laid out in a visually appealing and easy-to-follow way.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

In the talk page, there are no active conversations occurring between multiple editors of the article, but there are two unrelated messages listed in the talk page. The first message clarifies a mention of an original interpretation of Khrushchev's hand in Petrov-Vodkin's revival during the 1960s, while the second message elaborates on an external link from the Tretyakov Gallery that the editor modified to a more updated version of the link from an archive page. The article is not rated very well, as it is listed as in need of additional citations for verification. This particular topic of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin has not been discussed in class, so Wikipedia's presentation of information is the first I am exposed to and ready to enhance.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, I would say that the article's overall status is mediocre at best and in need of improvement. One of the article's biggest strengths is that it provides at least the bare minimum of information for each area of Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin's life as an artist, so anyone casually looking him up would be able to learn a few major points about him. At the same time, the article can be vastly improved in its organization, its quantity of information on his artistic contributions specifically, and certainly its credibility and inclusion of reliable secondary sources. I would say that the article is poorly developed at the moment, which can obviously be improved with further research and writing.


 * 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?

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: