User:Lemonlime2020/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Inscape (visual art)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the Wiki category "environmental art" interested me. That's where I found the term "inscape" and I was intrigued to read more about it. This article is important because it explains that "inscape" is part of an artist's psyche as a kind of interior landscape. It's also a form of art therapy through abstract/surrealist paintings. The overall article was good. It wasn't confusing and referenced artists who studied this particular art. Though, I do think the article could've been longer.

Evaluate the article
The lead section was good. It's straight forward, concise, and to the point. The Lead is trying to write the article's major sections in a nonobvious way, but I was able to identify the subjects after reading the article. It could've been stated more clearly in the Lead. I do, however, liked how the ending of the lead broke down the word "inscape" into the two words. The content is up to date; there's a variety of books, articles, and external links to use which is very helpful to reference to. The tone and balance was was neutral and it flowed nicely. I didn't get the sense of persuasion or bias, so it's definitely from a neutral point of view. The sources and references are reliable, however, they are out of date. The most "up to date" source was referring recent external link from 2004. This article is well organized and written. Again, it had a nice, concise, flow. The beginning of the body includes some cited quotes. It was okay to read, but as an intro body paragraph, the quotes were too long and made the beginning a little complicated and messy. There was an image of an example of "inscape" and it was nice to reference to. The caption and copyright was fine. When I clicked on the Talk Tab, I found out that the the article is part of the Wiki Visual Arts. The recent "talk" was from 2007, so this discussion is poor. When I first read this, I thought the article was overall good. After evaluating and analyzing it, I see it has its flaws. The general flow is easy to comprehend and the point was across. The body could've been elaborated with more content, so it's a little underdeveloped but has potential to be better. The neutral tone stayed consistent and the article included a image. Overall impression was good but could be better.