User:Olashes/sandbox

ARTICLE EVALUATION: Anselm Kiefer

Source assessment:Michael Prodger (12 September 2014), [17] Inside Anselm Kiefer's astonishing 200-acre art studio, The Guardian

Evaluating content

- Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

·       All the content in the source article I am referencing is relevant.

·      The author uses too much flowery language, but that is to be expected from a newspaper article.

- Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

·       The article was published in 2014, so I'm sure at least some of the information is outdated although I am unable to say specifically as my research and in this matter is still ongoing.

- What else could be improved?

·       It is a relatively short article, so there is room for improvement.

·       The article could stand to be more factual and less speculative in some areas.

Evaluating tone

- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

·       The article is nothing is not entirely neutral. The author makes numerous claims advice opinions in favor of the artist’s work.

- Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

·       I feel as though keepers home life is underrepresented. The article talks about his childhood and even his mother but fails to mention his children or either of his marriages.

Evaluating sources

- Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

·       The citations and links do work and the source does support claims made in the article for the most part.

- Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

·       The reliability of the source is in question. The information for the article is primarily from an interview conducted by project; however,as stated previously, he makes various biased claims favoring the authors work and occasionally speculates unnecessarily.

·       I chose to evaluate this particular source to determine its reliability—a concern shared by other members of my group—because it is used as a reference in the article assigned to us. I am in agreement with James that this article needs more scholarly sources.

Checking the talk page

- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

·       Editing of the article has been on and off since 2004, but activity has spiked since being assigned to this student project. Prior to that there was mention of page vandalization by one user.

- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

·       The article assigned to my group is rated a c-class article—an intermediate article with room for improvement. It Is the wikiproject assigned to my group and is also associated with the Germany wikiproject—which we will endeavor to incorporate into our work if possible.

Here's the Kiefer sandbox: User:Jrc05680/Kiefer sandbox

Jrc05680 (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)