User:Xiaoying Dong/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_art_criticism&oldid=1028162578

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
My second major is art history, so I’m very interested in art criticism articles.

Evaluate the article
Firstly, the introductory sentences in the introductory section of this article are very concise and targeted to summarize the main parts of the article with important definitions.This essay is relevant to the topic, explaining the definition of the history of art criticism, the development and integration of methods and genres. The last edited on June 12, 2021, this article is up to date for the slow-moving field of art history.Also this article does not address Wikipedia's equity gap, nor does it address demographic-related topics.

The terminology and narrative of this essay are very neutral, summarizing the history of art criticism and the development of each school from a purely academic perspective, without making value judgments or inducing readers to choose a particular school of thought.￼ In terms of citation sources, the essay is very detailed and thorough, with a selection of works by artists from different schools of study in the field, avoiding repetition and homogeneity. The sources cited are almost exclusively scholarly works, some from published academic journals and others from various university library journals.

The article is very successful in terms of layout, clearly yet organized in the form of a timeline of the development of art criticism, and the text within each tab provides a concise and easy-to-read account of the characteristics of art criticism in that period. In addition, I used software to check the grammar of the article and found no grammatical errors. As for the image section, this article does not provide too many valuable reference images, but only adds a few self-portraits or camera photos of artists in the art-critical genre to the page, and each of the accompanying images indicates the author, the content of the accompanying image, and the source of the citation, in compliance with Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The article is largely successful, it is well done, the wording is concise and easy to understand, the grammar is correct, the references are detailed, and it has a clear layout and timeline. The areas for improvement are that it is a bit boring for beginners, the accompanying pictures do not add to the sense of immersion, and, most importantly, it repeats the scope of other articles in the lexicon, especially art history, which makes it impossible for beginners to fully distinguish the difference between art critical history and art history.