User:Kelsjc/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Saturn Devouring His Son

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 I've always been fascinated by Francisco Goya's art, specifically his Black Paintings series, and this painting in particular. This painting is very well-known and evokes numerous emotions and interpretations depending on who the viewer is, so I was interested to see what the Wiki authors interpretation was and if there was any bias or a perspective not included in the biography. Art is subjective, so I figured an article on an art piece would be a good wiki article to critique for bias.

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.)


 * 1) Lead section- The lead section of this article is strong and concise and gives a brief overview into both the artists background and the paintings history and perceived meaning based on greek mythology. It even includes an alternate name the painting goes by.
 * 2) Content- The content of this article is thorough, yet not filled with unnecessary information. All information present is relevant to the lore of the painting and the biography of the artist and how this painting and the others in the series came to be. Since this painting is historic, I wouldn't expect any major updates in the present time, unless more is uncovered.
 * 3) Tone and balance- the article is very balanced between the painting itself and the speculation of the meanings behind it. The tone is professional and neutral and stays on topic throughout. The article brings up a speculation that some believe the headless person is a woman, not a man, and even though that contradicts everything in the article and even the (unofficial) title of the painting itself, it is nevertheless included in the article for the diversification of perspectives.
 * 4) Sources and references- all sources and references included in this article have a blue embedded link and they do work, so I feel this article is properly cited with the correct information provided to back up any claims. The sources seem to be pretty diverse, ranging from art history sources to the history of the region the artist was from, though there was not necessarily a huge diversity of the authors.
 * 5) Organization and writing quality- the article is organized well and flows with the focus on the painting, to the history of the painting, to the artist, to the artists history and other similar works by him, then ends with various conspiracies of the paintings meaning and contents. It is easy to read and understand is thorough without being information overload.
 * 6) Images and media- the images included in the article and relevant and helpful for the viewer to get a sense of the article and content. Not only is a picture of the painting provided, but also the house in which is was painted (on the walls of the house), as well as another version of the initial painting.
 * 7) Talk page- the talk page on this article discusses important revisions and additions/clarifications added in. It is also being discussed there that if the article talks about the painting never officially being naemd and that we don't know for sure that its Saturn in the painting, why is the article talking about it like it is fact? I had not previously considered this stance, but I do agree. It is part of the Visual Arts Wikiproject.
 * 8) Overall impressions- It is rated a B article, so it is good but could be better. I think the article is very well organized and touches on different interpretations, but because the title and actual meaning of the painting is not confirmed, the article should reflect that earlier on.