User:Saida Borunda/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Fifth Plague of Egypt

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose The Fifth Plague by Joseph Mallord William Turner because the colors of the gloomy painting made me want to try to distinguish what he had painted. This painting matters because it depicts the seventh plague, where Moses curses the Egyptians as a punishment for not releasing the Israelites from slavery. Showing this scene helps display a historical event to get a better idea of the event. My prelim impression was that the image was very hard to see because of the choice of dark and nurtural colors. These colors show a gloomy scene or that something bad is happening in the scene.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section in this article about the painting The Fifth Plague of Egypt is well stated. It clearly states what the name of the painting is, who painted it, and where it is currently located in the first sentence. When you continue reading the rest of the lead section, we are given a description of what the painting is and what it shows on the painting. The bad is very concise and does not include any extra information that is not in the rest of the article. The lead also foreshadows the rest of the articles helping the reader know what they can expect from the rest of the article.

The author's content is all relevant. It is important for the reader to know what scene Turner painted, so even the historical background was essential for the reader to understand every part of the painting. The content is up to date, the last time the article was edited was January 26, 2021 and the references are all from 2012. Overall, I do not believe it is missing content nor does it need more. When I read this article, it answered all my questions I had concerning this image. This article does a good job at not falling into the equity gap; however, it does not relate yto historically underrepresented topics.

The tone and balance of this article is very nurtural, there is no signs that the author is inputting their personal opinions on this article. The article is neutral and states what is relevant to the painting.

For the sources and references, the only part that is not backed up with a source is the description of the painting. This could make the reader believe that the author of the article may have made up this information without proper citations. The sources used are thorough, both are scholar articles meaning that they were peer reviewed to fact check their work. The sources are from 2012, they are current.The sources are both from a single author each and they do not include the marginalized individuals, since this painting did not require the need to do so. Overall, there are only two reference links and one is not available and the second is available but through the deep web.

The organization and writing quality of this article is well done. It is well written and it is easy to read. While rereading this article several times, I did not notice any grammatical errors. Lastly, the article organized into three main points: description, historical information, and acquisition.

This article includes the image of the paining and has a description that's sates important information such as the artist, year, what medium was used for the painting, how big it is, and where it is currently located. The image helps see the scene clearly without having to find it somewhere else and this is not copyrighted since this painting is from 1800. Also, once you open this article, the image is on the top right corner of the article making it visual appealing, since it is the first thing you see when you open the article.

There is no conversations behind the scenes of this article and it was part of the wikiprojsects under visual arts. This article is rated as Start-Class on the projects quality scale.

The overall impressions of this article is that it is concise and states only valid and non persuasive points. The status of the project is no longer under work according to the talk page; however, on the article itself, it Staes that it was last edited on January 26th, 2021. The article can be improved by finding new sources and adding it to the article. How it is currently lacks validity in certain points stated. The article feels complete, so it is well-developed; however, the lack of communication in the talk page shows that whoever edited this page did not communicate what they added or took out.