User:Samirasrour/Evaluate an Article

Article: Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not really, it kind of just starts going into the general history of the topic. It does not discuss the formal aspect of the painting, or its reception.


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is very detailed, although it summarizes the history of ownership of the painting (the topic in question). I would not describe it as concise, but it is still a summary nonetheless.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, very much so. The article also provides external links so it does not stray from the topic, but the reader may look into separate topics if they wish to.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, they even include a link to the newest 2015 movie about the topic at the top of the page.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Not that I know of.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

I do not think so.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, for the most part. Except for possibly one section*

* Elaborated on in "Talk page discussion".


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article is neutral, it discusses history based on facts. I am not aware of any other viewpoints on the subject, however if there were, then I would say there is only one narrative in this article.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Not applicable.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

There is no persuasion, however there is really just one position that is made available. This is just generally hard to evaluate in this article.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, and quotations/endnotes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

There is a variety of sources, from books to journals to TV media.


 * Are the sources current?

Many articles are from the late 2000s-2017, which make up for the one source from 1923.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The more recent articles, from the Internet and Television media section, present a more diverse set of authors. However, for the most part, no.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

There are probably more recent sources online or in scholarly databases, however I would not say that they are objectively "better". The sources referenced in this article are strong, scholarly and thorough, the article would just benefit from more variety.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Links within the Wikipedia article and website work, however links which bring the reader to another website/domain sometimes appear as "NOT FOUND" which suggests a lack of review on this article's sources.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is a little detail/information-heavy, but it is overall still readable.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Not that I have noticed, no.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes. I enjoy the separation, it is chronological and separated into contextual analysis, formal analysis (the painting), and future inquiries/legacy.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, plenty of artworks, references and portraits of important figures.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes, for the most part.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

I believe the images fall under the U.S. Copyright law "fair use" doctrine, and the images are identified as from an external source under "Sources", which adheres to Wikipedia's rules.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes, they are spread out across the article and its different sections, clear to read.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


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

There are a couple criticisms, namely concerning the author's referencing of a specific quote from critic Michael Kimmelman, who criticizes Maria Altmann's decision to sell the restituted paintings as "cashing in". A couple of users believe this glances over Altmann's other actions, like her charitable donations and humble living, and has antisemitic undertones.


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

The article was rated as "good" and is a level-5 vital article. It is is part of many WikiProjects falling under Visual Arts, Austrian, American and Jewish History, and Women.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Not applicable.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

In my opinion, I think it is very well-written and seems finished. It is definitely close to scholarly, at least for a Wikipedia article.


 * What are the article's strengths?

Its list of sub-themes, its use of evidence and facts, its long number of scholarly sources from a variety of places (TV, Internet, literature, journals), and its neutrality.


 * How can the article be improved?

As with most historical articles, it needs to diversify its sources.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

It is very well-developed. There are virtually no grammatical flaws or gaps, and all references are provided for additional research on the topic.