User:Keanna Rasekhi/Evaluate an Article

The leads for the article titles "Art Criticism" are very clear and concise; they provide key phrases that were the focus of the section, "Background", "Methodology", "Definitions". They organized the "History" with subheadings chronologically, making it easy to see the flow of the article with more general title names.

The tone for this article was neutral, in that it did not persuade towards the side of the critics or the artist who were at the whim of the critics. This topic can be easy to manipulate the tone to favor the artist and in disfavor of the critics. However, the article uses neutral language and provides both the good and the bad, objective information, rather than subjective. Impressively, rather that use biased tone about particular art critics, the article properly sourced and quoted others in history and how they described certain critics. Granted, this could be of fault give that we do not have extensive history on the relationship of who is being quoted and the critic.

After going through the links, there are a few discrepancies. For example, cite 16 of the article goes to no page found. However many of the other links do work and take the reader to a recommend Wiki Source. Most of the citations are current with a few that are slightly older and come directly from books, making it slightly challenging for others to fact check.

The one subheading in the article that was I believe would benefit from adding more to is the "Today" section. While the article roughly lists that art critics appear in "radio, tv, internet.." there is not a list of who, what are the most prevalent names today, or how art critics have changed in nature. Even their section on "Art Blogs" is not an in-depth history on how art criticism transitioned to the modern world of social media and whether or not this is the more prevalent method of art critics today or if we still have proclaimed figures called art critics among us today.

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

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.)

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.)