User:Mimimccammon6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Decadent Movement

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it applies to the information covered in the course Engl-172T at the University of Riverside, California. In class, we talked about the Decadent movement and the different forms of decadence so I picked this article from a straight-forward approach.

Evaluate the article
The lead section does have an introductory sentence about the Decadent Movement, pointing out the notion of decadence and its origins. The lead section is more vague when it comes to the article's major sections by referencing various individuals from philosophers to scholars and other movements for comparisons. The lead is concise yet confusing due to its various references. There could be room for improvement through the use of other defining characteristics of the period.

Considering the nature of the article as describing of a movement, the content is relevant to the topic of the Decadence Movement. The content covers largely the movement in France, distinctions between the Decadence Movement and Symbolism, its influence and legacy throughout the rest of the world, critical studies, as well as Decadent authors/artists. The content seems to be up to date in lieu of the references page which includes references from during and after the nineteenth century. The citations are listed as needed and used throughout the article at appropriate moments. There does not seem to be any information that does not belong or is missing. It seems as though the article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as it seems to represent male individuals of a certain class and possibly race. The article scarcely mentions any women involved with the movement, and if there are any they have little to zero information on them.

The article seems neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position, though there are some leading sentences throughout the article that seem opinionated or less formal and without corresponding citations. All viewpoints seem equally represented. There are zero minority viewpoints described in the article, or at least there are none that take on the standpoint of being a minority. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.

There are some leading sentences, as mentioned previously, that seem opinionated and should have a corresponding citation(s) or don't. The sources seem to be thorough from the use of secondary sources, some possible primary sources, as well as examples of work or artists from the period and/or movement itself. The sources are a mix of old and modern, ranging from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first century. The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors, especially when considering the range of publication dates. There are likely more current sources available that could be used to expand the article; however, given the amount of articles and their nature (secondary for example) the article likely doesn't need more. Most of the links work, however, there are a few that take you to sites that require you to have an account or don't have links at all.

The writing itself of the article is fairly well-written and decently understandable. There are some sections that are very wordy or consist of specific language or references without context. The article is decently organized as each section takes place after the other with zero gaps or specified reason for separation of the sections.

The article does include images, though almost all of them depict just art from the movement rather than equally literature and art. The images are well captions and list the name and creator of what is shown. The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations as they are captioned with a link to the Wikipedia article they were copied from or from their original source.

There are only a few discussions on the talk page. Half of them address the main problem with the article in which they ask for elaboration of the concept of decadence as well as more information about the movement in general. They are asking for more clarification of what decadence is, its themes, what kind of movement it was (literature or art), and more. The rest of the discussions supply possible expansions or additions to the article such as related topics. The article doesn't seem to have an outright rating, though the projects associated with it refer to it as a "Start Class" of "low importance". The WikiProjects associated with the article are "Symbolism and Art Nouveau", "Philosophy: Aesthetics", "Visual arts", and "Literature". Compared to our class, this article on the Decadent movement seems to focus more on the artists of the movement than of the whole picture of decadence as a whole. We have gone more in-depth about what decadence is, and more, in class.

If I were to rate the article on an overall status as a Wikipedia article I would rate it a four or five out of ten. The "bones" of the article are there in the form of background information on those involved with the movement and how it has affected the world; however, there isn't an improvement or clarification on the whole point of the movement (decadence). The article's strength is the mention of worldwide influence. The article can be improved by adding more information on the literature side of the movement such as key notions or takeaways. I would say the article seems about 65% complete as it has a lot of valuable information, but not all of it is necessary to gain a general understanding of the movement, the period, and social values at that time. While not poorly developed, it does not seem completely finished in regard to content.