User:Ninereeds9/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neo-conceptual art

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am largely interested in Neo-Conceptual art because I find it important to my personal artistic study. Looking at the network of interlinked articles on Neo-conceptual art, postmodern art, and their associated movements made me realize that the articles are frequently overlapping or redundant, or fail to adequately clarify the content.

Lead Section
The introductory sentence does describe the movement, but the rest of the paragraph quickly dives into specific subgroups of the movement rather than explaining any of the significance of the movement, or how it differentiates itself from earlier conceptual art. Adding more about the general status of the movement before listing notable members and events might help clear up some of the discussion in the talk page advocating that the article be merged with the article for Conceptual art. It might be worth mentioning examples of Neoconceptual artists who are still active currently, for those who are looking up the term to clarify something about contemporary art. The lead section does not adequately explain the history of the movement that is attempted to be covered in the History section.

Content
The content is uniformly relevant, but usually lacking in detail on relevant areas, while focusing too much on some specific narratives, IE those relating specifically to place, (the headings being cities) which ignores the role of other parts of the world. The organization of content by location is fine, as geography did inform the movement, but it needs more locations to make it feel balanced and not overly specific. Because of the focus on a few specific areas of the art world, the article does notably gloss over the role of women and non-white artists in Neoconceptual art, which is a large part of the movement. Good reference could be made to the fact that contemporary critics often specifically singled out the works of women as spearheading the movement in the 80s. The content could stand to be updated with some recent events. For Example, Maurizio Cattelan, a notable Italian neoconceptualist artist was recently the subject of global attention after the sale of his controversial piece Comedian (artwork).

Tone and Balance
I found the tone and balance of the article fine, but I feel this was largely because it was not long enough to have radical inconsistencies.

Sources and References
Most of the article is fairly well sourced. The history section is woefully under sourced, and could use more notes on the origins of the movement from actual critics. I'm basing that assessment off of the premise that usually it is art critics who mainly attempt to define the history and origin of any specific movement. The history section references important critics, but does little to describe what they actually wrote on the Neoconceptual artists.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is concise and easy to read, but the organization is strange. It does make sense to lead off with the history of the movement, but it feels strange to have cities have entire headings and sections dedicated to themselves. It might make more sense if the movement in each location was documented as a sub-heading of the history tab. The notable events tab is a good organizational idea, but it includes no notable publishing dates of important critiques or gallery shows, which tend to best define the borders of art historical movements. 'Controversy in the UK' might best be served by changing the 'London' heading to the UK in general, and adding a sub-heading specifically for the controversy. As I mentioned before, there should be more geographical locations to emphasize the extent of the movement.

Images and Media
The article is fairly light on images, which is not a problem given it's current length. The images are appropriately captioned, and are of good quality and relevant to the article. Again, as more content is added, it might be useful to have a broader array of images that help illustrate a wider spread of actual Neoconceptual art.

Talk Page Discussion
There is fairly minimal talk page discussion, and it's fairly old, but it does seem to accurately assess the state of the article. As I mentioned above, there was discussion of merging the article with 'Conceptual Art,' but I don't believe this is an entirely appropriate course of action. The article is currently C-class, and rated as Low Importance.

Overall Impressions
I think the article is on a good start, but the assessment of the article in the talk page as lacking significant content is accurate. The article is fairly incomplete, and where it is developed well it is developed unevenly, which leaves a lot of room for improvement. In general, the article needs better structure and more detail on artists and critics. I've addressed most of the improvements I would make in the above sections.