User:The Renaissance Explorer/Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear/Xxsososaraxx Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

The Renaissance Explorer


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:The Renaissance Explorer/Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?


 * 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?

There has been no clear changes/updates on the lead reflecting on the new content created by my peer. You should consider creating a new section for your lead before showcasing the changes made and briefly talk about why this content was added in a short and summarised way.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added is very relevant to the topic as it elaborates more on information and/or adds missing information. For instance:

"Van Gogh's fur cap in this portrait serves as a memory of the difficult working circumstances he encountered in January 1889; he had recently purchased the hat to keep his heavy bandage in place and protect himself from the winter cold."

The author introduces a new approach to explore the painting and learn about it as it even delves down to the item of clothing and what it means to Van Gogh without straying away from the main idea of the article (the painting)


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

All the content seems up to date however this specific source i found that the author used doesn't have a date:

https://courtauld.ac.uk/highlights/self-portrait-with-bandaged-ear/


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

There is no missing content or content that does not belong, everything that is added either elaborates more on something that is already written on the article or adds new information. For example:

"an Gogh sliced off his left ear (He used a mirror to paint this portrait, thus making it look like the right ear is bandaged instead) and brought it to a prostitute in Arles."

The author elaborates on which ear in specific is sliced off to avoid confusion and adds more information on why this confusion can occur. Comments i have to improve this:

Avoid using parenthesis to elaborate on an idea that you want to discuss that is very relevant to the topic. The parenthesis here seem unnecessary and you could word this in a more proper way that fits Wikipedia's writing style more.


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

The article does not directly address any of Wikipedia's equity gaps or specifically highlight topics related to historically underrepresented populations. Instead, it discusses various aspects of Vincent van Gogh's life and artistic techniques, such as his use of impasto painting strokes, his interest in Japanese art, and the famous incident where he cut off his ear. While van Gogh's struggles with mental health are often discussed in relation to his art, this particular excerpt focuses more on his artistic influences and techniques rather than issues related to underrepresented populations.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

The link here does not feel reliable:

https://courtauld.ac.uk/highlights/self-portrait-with-bandaged-ear/

This link feels a little bit more reliable than the previous however maybe a scholarly article might be better:

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/behind-the-scenes/behind-the-scenes-in-conservation-the-unfashionable-artist-who-inspired-van-gogh

This link is a reliable as a it refers to a book, however it might be pirated and I'm not sure how wikipedia specialists would feel about that:

https://www.vangoghstudio.com/your-daily-dose-van-gogh-ebook-for-free/

This link feels unreliable as it is a blog and not a scholarly article or an article written by a professional, its also written in an informal way.

https://www.vangoghstudio.com/did-van-gogh-use-impasto/

This link feels very reliable as it refers to a book written by a specialist and a person knowledgeable on the subject:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/300337385/The-Essential-Vincent-Van-Gogh-Art-eBook

This link is very reliable as it comes from a very well known reputable source of information:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hiroshige

This link is reliable as it comes from a reputable organization and library that is knowledgeable on this specific topic:

https://vangoghmuseum-prod.azurewebsites.net/en/stories/inspiration-from-japan?v=1#0


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

The content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say. The new content added from the sources are also paraphrased while also maintain the same idea without having the copy the same phrasing.


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

The sources are thorough as many of them dive very deep on the subject and many of them are very reputable sources that are heavily knowledgeable on this certain subject. Are the sources current?


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

The article is an artistic and history topic which can be hard to find a diverse spectrum of authors. The sources seem somewhat diverse as they refer to books, historians, Articles, scholarly articles, and a dictionary website.


 * 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.)

I think there are some better sources could be available to the author as many of them don't feel entirely reliable. I think the author should search the painting and write scholarly articles to be guaranteed a reliable source that is agreeable and liked by wikipedia professionals


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

All of the links are available and work fine.

Tone and Balance:

Try to maintain a more balanced and neutral tone throughout this article as it lacks that tone here, for example:

"He was inspired by the prints made by Hiroshige, a Japanese artist that was considered a master of the colored woodblock print, especially his One Hundred Famous Views of Edo as well as many others."

Avoid using words like Especially as it encourages the reader to be persuaded of one position.

Another example:

"Van Gogh was a big fan of Japanese art, and especially.."

Again, avoid using words such as especially. Also, there should be another formal way of saying a big fan in this context, for example you could say "was heavily inspired by" or "had a huge liking to"

"He liked the prints so much that he collected hundreds of them"

I believe this statement could be worded more professionally.

Nonetheless, the rest of the content seems to be worded in a neutral manner however some statements need some rewording specifically in a more formal manner that fit into Wikipedia's writing style.

However, it's worth noting that the content primarily highlights van Gogh's artistic achievements and notable events in his life, such as his interest in Japanese art and the incident involving the cutting off of his ear. While these aspects are important and relevant to understanding van Gogh's legacy, there may be other viewpoints or perspectives that are not as prominently featured in the provided excerpt.

For example, the content could potentially explore the impact of van Gogh's mental health struggles on his work or discuss any controversies surrounding his artistic reputation. Additionally, while the content briefly mentions van Gogh's interest in Japanese art, it does not delve deeply into the cultural context or implications of his admiration for Japanese prints.

Images and Media:


 * 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?

The author does NOT include any new images or media to enhance the understanding of the topic.

Organization:


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

Overall, the content is well-written. It provides concise information about Vincent van Gogh's artistic techniques, influences, and notable events in his life. The language is clear and easy to understand, making it accessible to readers who may not be familiar with art history or van Gogh's work. However, there are a few areas where the wording could be improved for clarity and coherence. For example, the sentence "He used a mirror to paint this portrait, thus making it look like the right ear is bandaged instead" could be rephrased for smoother flow. Additionally, some sentences could benefit from better transitions between ideas to improve overall readability. Overall, with some minor adjustments, the content could be even clearer and more engaging for readers.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The content appears to be well-written and free from obvious grammatical or spelling errors. However, there are a few areas where minor improvements could be made for clarity and consistency. For example, in the sentence "He liked the prints so much that he collected hundreds of them," it might be clearer to specify what "them" refers to, such as "he collected hundreds of Japanese prints." Additionally, there are some punctuation inconsistencies, such as the inconsistent use of commas before introductory phrases. Overall, the content is generally well-written but could benefit from some minor refinements for clarity and consistency.


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

The content provided does cover several key aspects of Vincent van Gogh's life and artistic influences. However, it is not well-organized into clearly defined sections that reflect the major points of the topic. It discusses various elements such as van Gogh's use of impasto painting strokes, his interest in Japanese art, and the incident involving the cutting off of his ear.

To enhance organization and readability, the content could be structured into distinct sections such as "Van Gogh's Artistic Techniques," "Influence of Japanese Art," and "Notable Events in Van Gogh's Life." Each section could then provide more detailed information about the respective topic, making it easier for readers to navigate and understand the content.

Overall impressions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The new content added does improve the overall quality of the article as it elaborates on information that is already there giving clarity to the reader and adding a new section that feels necessary as the technique and inspiration of the painting could be good background information for those who are curious about this specific painting


 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Clarity: The language used is clear and straightforward, making it accessible to readers of varying levels of familiarity with art history.
 * Conciseness: The information provided is concise and to the point, offering key insights without unnecessary elaboration.
 * Relevance: The content focuses on significant aspects of van Gogh's life and work, such as his artistic techniques, influences, and notable events, which are relevant to understanding his contributions to art history.
 * Detail: Specific details, such as van Gogh's use of impasto painting strokes and his interest in Japanese art, enrich the narrative and provide a deeper understanding of his artistic process and influences.
 * Engagement: The content includes intriguing anecdotes, such as the incident involving the cutting off of van Gogh's ear, which captivate the reader's interest and add human interest to the discussion.
 * Paraphrasing: The author does not plagiarize any of the sources used while also focusing on the main idea.
 * Coherent: The author makes very smooth transitions from one sentence to the next.
 * How can the content added be improved?


 * 1) Organizational Structure: Consider organizing the content into clear sections that reflect the major aspects of van Gogh's life and work, such as his artistic techniques, influences, and significant events. This will improve readability and help readers navigate the information more easily.
 * 2) Consistency: Ensure consistency in language, style, and formatting throughout the content. Pay attention to punctuation, sentence structure, and the use of transitions between ideas to maintain coherence.
 * 3) Expansion: While the content provides valuable insights, consider expanding on certain points to provide more depth and context. For example, delve further into van Gogh's specific techniques and their impact on his artistic style, or explore the cultural and historical influences behind his interest in Japanese art.
 * 4) Citation of Sources: Include citations for any factual information or quotations used in the content to ensure accuracy and credibility. This will also allow readers to further explore the topic if they desire.
 * 5) Engagement with Equity Gaps: If relevant, consider incorporating discussion or analysis of how van Gogh's work intersects with issues of representation and equity in the art world. This could involve exploring topics such as the historical underrepresentation of certain artists or the impact of cultural biases on art appreciation.