User talk:Azvdo.art/sandbox/Madonna della Seggiola

Your edit of the leading section is great. Considering the original article is one big introduction, it's nice to see the lead cleaned up and condensed. It gets across major aspects of the painting without including other intricacies. As you discuss impacts on other artists later in the article, perhaps you could include a short piece in the introduction about this Madonna's cultural impact on later artists. It doesn't have to be too long of an addition, just something letting a reader know that there's an "impact" section later on in the article.

I like your formatting of structure; I find it's very similar to my own as a sort of pseudo-chronological structure; going from description to Influence is a great way to account for the span of impact the painting has.

Your coverage is looking good so far. I'd assume your "Description" section will be the longest and cover the most material/references. I'm curious as to how you'll address your "Provenance" section; I had that section in my article as well, but I wasn't too sure to what extent I should cover the piece's provenance. Would I just document pre-museum ownership, museum ownership, or combine the two? I may look into that a bit more myself. Overall, I believe your content is well-balanced; the bulk of your article is based in the "Description" and "Influences on Other Artists," and I assume the shorter of your remaining two sections will be your "Provenance" section. Great start!

I don't see your article leaning too heavily one way or another. You seem to just be stating observations of the piece and giving credible citations to each piece of extracted information. I didn't read anything that seemed biased or had biased language, which is definitely a good thing. Keep stating the facts and citing reliably.

Finally, your information seems to be cited well; there aren't large chunks of text that are uncited, which is reassuring. It does appear to be that, in your references section, there are redundant citations. Remember, you can re-use citations without having to re-enter them! At the time of reading this, it appears as if you have 5 citations for James Beck from the same source that you could condense into one citation. Look into that, and I think your citations will look great. I'm glad you have books to reference; I believe half of my sources were websites and the other were journals pulled from JSTOR.

So, my overall comments: Look into that citation fix, add a short introduction to the "Impact" section in your lead section, and re-visit the Hawthorne and Morghen Influences. I feel as if there could be more context given to these bits of information.

When I opened your article and the original, I was stunned that the original only had an introduction. After reading it, I knew it could have had, at the very least, a cultural section for the Hawthorne and Morghen cultural pieces. So, opening your sandbox was a sight for sore eyes for having distinct sections with relevant and properly sourced information. I'm looking forward to seeing your "Provenance" and "Techniques" sections get filled out and completed. You've given me inspiration for my own article as far as the Description section is concerned. Keep it up! FawnSpirit (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)FawnSpirit