User talk:Egarciaart/sandbox

Article Evaluation: The Knight in Black

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Knight_in_Black

I chose this article to evaluate, because I love paintings and everything that has to do with art history.

Lead Section - The lead section of the Wikipedia article, “The Night in Black”, is a clear and complete introduction to the subject. The lead does include a brief description of the major sections. The one piece of information that the lead has, but is not present in the article, is about the museum the artwork is being held at, Museo Poldi Pezzoli in Milan. The lead is simply concise, not wordy.

Content - The article’s content is relevant to the topic, the writer hit all the key notes from the lead. The content is up to date, and it was last edited on January 8, 2020. There are a few details about this work of art that are missing from the article. First, the fact that this work of art was painted life-size. It is also a part of a full-length portrait painting series by the artist. Also, there is no mention of the current museums name of which it is being held at today. It is only in the lead and under the photo description, not the body. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance - The article is written from a neutral point of view and with a neutral tone. There are no claims that appear biased. The writer does not seem to have a position or side in the subject. There is a viewpoint that does seem to be underrepresented, the description, professional critiques or analysis of the painting itself. We are only given a quick trace of how the painting ended up at its current museum. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints, these topics do not arise in this article. Again, the article does not try to persuade or push the reader into one viewpoint.

Sources and References - The facts are backed up by reliable sources and reflect the available literature on the topic of this article. There is one source that has no link and no date as to when that source was created, reference number four. The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, they are all in Italian, by Italian authors. I could not find scholarly peered reviewed articles on the painting. The links do work, but (I am not sure if this is a problem) there are a few links that go to another Wikipedia article as a reference.

Organizing and writing quality - The writing is clear, legible, and easy to read. There are no spelling errors. The article is well organized, mostly because it is very short in information, so there is not much ground covered that needs its own categories. Note: there is a grammatical error on the “Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org evaluate article” that I am using, under this section. Where it reads: “The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.”, there is an extra “the” that must be removed.

Images and Media - The article does include an image of the painting; it helps the reader get a better understanding on the topic. Plus, the image is well captioned. The image used adheres to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations, seeing that the author has been diseased since 1579. The image is now a public domain and may be used. The image is laid out in clean appealing manner.

Talk page discussion - There are no talks being discussed on behalf of this article. Unfortunately, I could not find anything written about the article. Overall impressions The articles strengths are that is clear, written cleanly, and has an image to give the reader more information compared to those articles that do not have images. The article can be improved by creating a category regarding the description and artistic evaluation of the painting itself. I believe the article needs more detail, more