User:OceanBlue11/Evaluate an Article

User: OceanBlue11/Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: The Monk by the Sea
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I've currently looked at this interesting painting in one of my art history classes, learning about romanticism.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introduction explains the who, what, and when by addressing the type of painting, the name of the artist, and which century. The person then described what the painting was about (of the monk being surrounded by a large body of water, tapping into his own spirituality). It gets straight to the point and saves more details for the following sections to deeply analyze.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article is very on topic and is relevant between the artist's intentions and the meaning of the painting itself. Other works by different artists were mentioned to compare to the monk by the sea, as a way to show similarity or a kind of style.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article appears neutral and unbiased. He/she mentions the controversy amongst the painting. People believed that the artist painted himself reflecting as a monk rather than a mock itself so there is an overall balance leading up to the process and aftermath of the painting that appears unbiased.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts in the article are backed up by reliable sources, however, not much were similar to the article itself. It took sometime to go through some of the resources to see where information was cited from.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is very clear and easy to read. It is unbiased and there weren't that many mistakes. The sections were relevant to the painting and were comprehendible. It talked about what the painting was about, controversy led behind it, and inspiration for painting it.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The images visually explained what was written to further improve the painting, similar to a formal analysis. Based on the bright colors of the paintings, they each stand out in each section on the right side the page. The captions also describe the dimensions, the artist, and time period which then lead to another page (artist responsible for painting).


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article is apart of the WikiProjects and rated as C-Class. However, there haven't been any discussions held so far. One person mentioned that they translated the page from German to English and seemed opened for others to make a few alterations if needed. Compared to my other art history class, we haven't talked a lot about the artist, but we talked about major key points that the person responsible for the page have mentioned.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article was well-written and had a great balance of reliable information. They gave information of the painting itself and background knowledge about the artist. The only way the article could be improved would probably be to talk more about the painting than the artist, even though there was a balance between the too.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: