User:Y.toadflax/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation.


 * Name of article: Hellenistic art
 * I have chosen to evaluate the "Hellenistic art" article page to use as a start off point for my seminar report on "Statues of Hercules in Hellenistic Art".

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

The Lead's introductory paragraph does describe the topic of the article as it gives a brief history of the Hellenistic period and examples of well-known artworks however, does not do it in a clear manner.


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

No, out of the four paragraphs within the Lead about five sentences were dedicated to the major sections of the article (only mentioned by name) resulting in a miscommunication between the overall topic of art and its forms (paintings, mosaics, pottery, etc.).


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, the Lead does not provide information that is not discussed in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is overly detailed in terms of describing the period in question and could have been shorten to two paragraphs instead of the four however, on the art part there was not enough information so in the end there was an imbalance of the two.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead consisted of an imbalance between providing historical background of the period and the topic of the article resulting in a lengthy introduction that bordered on rambling.

Content

 * Guiding questions


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

The majority of the article's content is relevant however, the various subsections within a form of art such as the "Sculpture" section is filled with historical and/or mythological background rather than discussing what makes the piece Hellenistic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

The article's last update was on November 1st, 2020 thus, up-to-date.


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

There is no mention of how colour played a role in areas such as architecture and sculpture. Additionally, the section discussing Roman copies of Hellenistic art seemed to have been an afterthought as it was not mentioned in the Lead. Moreover, there could have been a dedication to the music and poetry within the "Minor Arts" section as they too were part of the fine arts of the period however, not as significant as the other forms.


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

Not really, the article was mostly male dominated in names recognized as well as subjects of art that had the most Hellenistic attributes. There was no mention of women in terms of being creators of art and when mentioned it would be in referenced to either being depicted as a noble woman or to aid men in military battles (or desires or to be less than). In a subsection there was a hint of other races being represented such as black people in Egypt and how these artworks were treated but does not go into much depth (more like a gloss over), other than that the article did not touch upon the inner workings of Hellenistic art.

Content evaluation
Collectively, the content section slightly expanded on the ideas presented in the Lead however, not enough to be of any major significance.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

The article begins with a neutral tone then descends into a less factual and more personal tone.


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

In the article it is clear (from my understanding) that the person (or people) who wrote it had an appreciation for the art during this period however, tended to abstain from providing sources when such claims were made, indicating a bias.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There is at least one artwork from each prominent part of the Hellenistic dynasty established by the generals of Alexander the Great's army however, is was hard to know where these places the artworks were found due to the name no longer being in use therefore, can not be sure of what has been over-represented or under-represented.


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

No, however the author or authors seemed to be over-excited at times when describing the forms of Hellenistic art such as it being placed on a pedestal and inferring that the Romans were jealous of it without a citation indicating whether it was known to be a fact or not. There were a few instances within the article that contained criticisms of the period's art however, the positives outweighed the negatives.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone ventured into value statements and original research the further along a reader went, essentially losing the plot established earlier.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes, there are reliable sources attached to the article however, are sparse when claims are made in the article.


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

Some do and others do not as the majority of sources came from books therefore could not verify however, the ones I could verify did reflect the information provided in the article.


 * Are the sources current?

The sources range for Pliny the Elder's time to two years ago but, the bulk of the sources are from the 20th century thus, lacking recent studies.


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

Diverse as in fields of study, languages, and years published then yes, diverse in terms of marginalized individuals or groups of people I do not know therefore cannot confirm.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The ones that have links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Collectively, the sources and references provided are reliable however, are hard to find the citations of in the content written.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

The article is decently written. At times it felt very obvious that more than one person edited the article, from having different punctuation and word choices as well as some paragraphs containing more citations than others when making claims, which resulted in multiple readings of the sections.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There is a few grammatical errors within the article such as sentences being be a bit off in capitalization, hard to read, and convoluted (such as the first sentence of the introductory paragraph) thus, a major issue.


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

The article is not well-organized. The organization of the article bothered me the most as there was too many subsections for a single topic, they prioritized additional history and the logistics of the art more than how the art was perceived and felt during the Hellenistic period. The sections were choppy and did not fully flesh out ideas, leaving me wondering what the major points of the topics were again and would find myself skipping over subsections that contained one or two sentences as I unconsciously deemed it unnecessary and a waste, taking away from the consistency of the article.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization of the article was tolerable and could have been written with less subsections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

When used properly the images certainly added to my understanding of the topic otherwise it confused me even more. In sections, there would be descriptions of multiple artworks that were not provided within the article causing me to wonder why was it even there in the first place. Other times the images would be placed in weird parts of the article causing my eye to dart around in search of the image that was being described or there would be an overabundance of images that ended up cluttering the overall article.


 * Are images well-captioned?

The images are captioned with an attention to detail for the bulk of article while a select few were not.


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

Yes.


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

No, the images felt like they were all over the place and was hard to keep track of what was being discussed in the article and what was not, however, the images themselves are visually clear therefore pleasant to look at. The surplus of images deterred me from continuing to read the article as I felt I could learn much better from the images alone than from the text provided (which mostly consisted of what materials were used or historical location).

Images and media evaluation
Collectively, the images provided were helpful in depicting the Hellenistic period however, when combined with the text it became confusing and overwhelming.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


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

Conversations about the article centered around translating it (what words to use, etc.) as it was originally written in French, along with discussions about what images and how many images to use. The talk page has not been use in for about 3 or 4 years.


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

The article is rated a C-Class in WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Visual arts, and a level-4 vital article in Art.


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

Well, we have not really talked about Hellenistic sculptures in class however, have discussed sculptures from other cultures in which we examined the art pieces and what it represented as well as it significance in society, which the article in question did the opposite as it focused on the tangible (materials) rather than the metaphorical (symbolism).

Talk page evaluation
Overall, the talk page was helpful to those asking questions about how to continue and improve the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

I give the article a rating of 2.5 out of 5 stars. The article is decent and has the basics down but relies heavily on images to convey what Hellenistic art was, therefore, lacking the balance of text and images that other art-based Wikipedia articles have.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The strengths were in the images provided. They were properly cited and fairly well-captioned, if the article contained only images I would have gather the same or even more knowledge of what Hellenistic art was and how it differed from previous art periods.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article should be organized into the Hellenistic dynasties to eliminate the confusion of where the artwork originated or into separate Wikipedia articles such as a Hellenistic pottery and mosaic page, as in this article there were a whole bunch of subsections dedicated to each. "Art" is used as a blanket term in this article which the authors could have made use of to make longer paragraphs under the headings therefore, removing the subsections creating a more cohesive article. Additionally, the sentences should be more informative (with extra citations) than flowery, removing the rambling bits and the notion of original research. Words such as "grotto" and "Aegean" should have been linked to other Wikipedia articles to help readers know what is being referred to as well as using sculptural terms more firmly than using them interchangeably.


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

The article is under-developed as it gives off an impression of being done in a rush. Covering a vague topic such as "Hellenistic Art" is a huge task as there are many forms ranging from poetry to architecture therefore, cannot be done on a time limit such as a semester where there is no time to dwell on a certain topic (showing in this article's reliance on imagery than on text). The author or authors should have tackled this topic one at a time than all at once which produced a half-finished account of art during the Hellenistic period.

Overall evaluation
Collectively, the article clearly needed more time to mature however, the gist of the article is sufficient to be a start off point into the period of art.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback:

DID NOT DO.