Mostly everything in the article is relevant to the topic, but it does not go into much depth. There are some facts included that are not necessarily needed, such as how naturalism developed and how Courbet's style developed outside of realism. The information also seems scattered and poorly organized which makes it confusing and distracting to read.
The article is neutral and does not support any positional claims.
Most points in the article are underrepresented. The information is very vague and scattered.
The sources in the article have a lot of problems. Some sources are cited multiple times in the references, some say "page not found" when you click on it, and another one was a security threat. The sources are very jumbled, disorganized, and incorrect. Some facts do not have references cited, or do not have reliable or even existing sources. The information is not terribly out of date, but it could be more updated. A lot of the sources are from the early 2000's so they could be updated, but do not necessarily need to be.
On the talk page, there have been no discussions. The article has been rated as Start-class. It is a part of WikiProject Visual Arts.
The article achieves its rhetorical purpose to an extent. It informs and educates the audience, but not to a great extent. It is much too vague and jumbled to effectively inform.
Paraphrase for "Realism movement overview and analysis". (2019). TheArtStory.org.
Realism began in the 1840's [as regards the time, could you find another source to validate it because the prior author of this Wikipedia article said it was in 1850s] in France and is widely regarded as the beginning of the modern art movement due to the push to incorporate modern life and art together. Realism did not focus on beauty in art like many artists previously did, but concentrated on portraying the harsh and ugly realities of life such as social, economical, political, and cultural realities. Gloomy earth toned palettes were used to ignore beauty and idealization that was typically found in art. This movement sparked controversy because it purposefully criticized social values and the upper classes, as well as examining the new values that came along with the industrial revolution.
-paraphrase for ebsco article:
In America, the term realism took on various new definitions and adaptations once the movement hit the U.S. Surrealism and magical realism developed out of the French realist movement in the 1930's, and in the 1950's new realism developed. This sub-movement considered art to exist as a thing in itself opposed to representations of the real world. In modern day America, realism art is generally regarded as anything that does not fall into abstract art, therefore including mostly art that depicts realities.
Please see the above bold texts in the brackets my feedback. Also, after comparing with your Wikipedia article, I found some information is repetitive (see above the bold part). Therefore, you may need to remove the repeated part and find other information to contribute.
 | This is a user sandbox of
Alyssa giffin. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Content: The content of this is very good, everything is relevant and makes complete sense. I have no recommendations for this, it is really good.
Organization: Everything fits very well together, you talked about the article and how it doesn't go into much depth which was a good idea to do. I think that the only thing that could be different is talk a little more about how the article is relevant to the topic, you talked more about how the article is bad.
Tone: The tone of this is good, it has a good flow and everything is appropriate and makes sense. No recommendations.
Sources: I think the wiki article could be a little better as you said in this and I think the source TheArtStory.org is a good source and is credible and a great source to have picked.
Overall, the content was clear and to the point, it was easy to understand. Perhaps you could mention what type of art focused on beauty to give the reader more background information. The transitions are smooth, though more information would be added about how it sparked controversy and what the values were like during the industrial revolution.
Content: The content fits with the rest of the article and is relevant to it. It takes information that was very vague in the original article and makes it more clear and specific.
Organization: The addition is made well to fit with the flow of the rest of the article and starts with the date and then a description to make sure it doesn't jump around at all.
Tone: The tone used is unbiased and factual. The original tone used in the article seemed to act as though the author was trying to act smart with certain vocabulary usage, so it is nice that that tone is not used with the revision of the article to keep the article written in a way that everyone can enjoy and understand it.
Sources: The source used looks reliable. I would just make sure that the dates used are correct by looking at another source since the original article had conflicting time periods used.
Mostly everything in the article is relevant to the topic, but it does not go into much depth. There are some facts included that are not necessarily needed, such as how naturalism developed and how Courbet's style developed outside of realism. The information also seems scattered and poorly organized which makes it confusing and distracting to read.
The article is neutral and does not support any positional claims.
Most points in the article are underrepresented. The information is very vague and scattered.
The sources in the article have a lot of problems. Some sources are cited multiple times in the references, some say "page not found" when you click on it, and another one was a security threat. The sources are very jumbled, disorganized, and incorrect. Some facts do not have references cited, or do not have reliable or even existing sources. The information is not terribly out of date, but it could be more updated. A lot of the sources are from the early 2000's so they could be updated, but do not necessarily need to be.
On the talk page, there have been no discussions. The article has been rated as Start-class. It is a part of WikiProject Visual Arts.
The article achieves its rhetorical purpose to an extent. It informs and educates the audience, but not to a great extent. It is much too vague and jumbled to effectively inform.
Paraphrase for "Realism movement overview and analysis". (2019). TheArtStory.org.
Realism began in the 1840's [as regards the time, could you find another source to validate it because the prior author of this Wikipedia article said it was in 1850s] in France and is widely regarded as the beginning of the modern art movement due to the push to incorporate modern life and art together. Realism did not focus on beauty in art like many artists previously did, but concentrated on portraying the harsh and ugly realities of life such as social, economical, political, and cultural realities. Gloomy earth toned palettes were used to ignore beauty and idealization that was typically found in art. This movement sparked controversy because it purposefully criticized social values and the upper classes, as well as examining the new values that came along with the industrial revolution.
-paraphrase for ebsco article:
In America, the term realism took on various new definitions and adaptations once the movement hit the U.S. Surrealism and magical realism developed out of the French realist movement in the 1930's, and in the 1950's new realism developed. This sub-movement considered art to exist as a thing in itself opposed to representations of the real world. In modern day America, realism art is generally regarded as anything that does not fall into abstract art, therefore including mostly art that depicts realities.
Please see the above bold texts in the brackets my feedback. Also, after comparing with your Wikipedia article, I found some information is repetitive (see above the bold part). Therefore, you may need to remove the repeated part and find other information to contribute.
| This is a user sandbox of
Alyssa giffin. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Content: The content of this is very good, everything is relevant and makes complete sense. I have no recommendations for this, it is really good.
Organization: Everything fits very well together, you talked about the article and how it doesn't go into much depth which was a good idea to do. I think that the only thing that could be different is talk a little more about how the article is relevant to the topic, you talked more about how the article is bad.
Tone: The tone of this is good, it has a good flow and everything is appropriate and makes sense. No recommendations.
Sources: I think the wiki article could be a little better as you said in this and I think the source TheArtStory.org is a good source and is credible and a great source to have picked.
Overall, the content was clear and to the point, it was easy to understand. Perhaps you could mention what type of art focused on beauty to give the reader more background information. The transitions are smooth, though more information would be added about how it sparked controversy and what the values were like during the industrial revolution.
Content: The content fits with the rest of the article and is relevant to it. It takes information that was very vague in the original article and makes it more clear and specific.
Organization: The addition is made well to fit with the flow of the rest of the article and starts with the date and then a description to make sure it doesn't jump around at all.
Tone: The tone used is unbiased and factual. The original tone used in the article seemed to act as though the author was trying to act smart with certain vocabulary usage, so it is nice that that tone is not used with the revision of the article to keep the article written in a way that everyone can enjoy and understand it.
Sources: The source used looks reliable. I would just make sure that the dates used are correct by looking at another source since the original article had conflicting time periods used.