User:Kiki0726/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Adoration of the Magi (Dürer)

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 Adoration of the Magi by Dürer in order to learn more about other works Dürer painted during this time in order to identify stylistic similarities and potentially highlight what the artists finds significant. Moreover, Adoration o the Magi was painted the same year as Adam and Eve, the engraving I am researching. This article is important because it provides historical context and information about the painting. This article also discusses the composition of the art itself, providing useful information about the structure of the piece. My preliminary impression was that although it seemed to have a good amount of information that was relevantly cited, there was no distinction between the lead and the actual article. Moreover, within the actual article, there are no subheadings to help differentiate sections about the history, the composition, and Dürer himself.

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.)

Overall, the article, Adoration of the Magi (Dürer), does a good job at using relevant, secondary sources to provide information and utilizing frequent citation, however there is room for improvement in the articles organization and writing. To begin, the article does not contain a lead. While, there is a topic sentence at the beginning of the article, there is no section that provides an overview of what the article contains. Overall the content of this article is relevant, up to dat, and well-cited. There is one paragraph discussing Dürer's reputation as an artist that is not directly relevant to the topic at hand. This paragraph distracts from the larger discussion. The references provided are well-cited throughout the text. The references provided are all reliable secondary sources from a variety of authors. However, the only link to article 5 under the reference list does not work. The organization of the article is lacking. There are no headings to distinguish the information being discussed and while each paragraph deals with its own topic, at times, the article seems to jump randomly from one topic to another. The writing style is not always clear and concise. I found I was struggling to understand wha the article was attempting to convey at times. There is a singular image included of the actual painting. It is well captioned and visually appealing. Potentially including more images of up-close sections could provide clarity to discussion points about the artwork's composition. The talk page currently does not have any discussions or ratings.