This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
Overall, the lead to this article is excellent in its length and amount of detail. However, there are multiple extraneous details pertaining to specific sections while other sections have merely a passing mention. I would recommend balancing the space which each section takes up in the overall lead. For example, Terry Pratchett is mentioned by name despite not being particularly relevant to the article as a whole, while comics, cartoons, and film are not elaborated on.
The article provides many examples, sorted by medium and time period. The choice of separating works from different time periods into their own sections is excellent, as it allows the article to mention many of the similar characteristics of alchemy's inclusion at specific times and in specific media. However, I would like the article to possess short descriptions of the presence of alchemy in each work, explaining its attitude towards and treatment of alchemy. Additionally, lists of different attitudes towards alchemy in art are provided for many larger sections. However, these distinctions are not used. They could possibly be employed in order to explain the general attitudes possessed by each individual work. The content covers both the present day and the historical role of alchemy in art. However, the article on film could possess more specificity, although it does explain the traits of many films featuring alchemy.
The article is for the most part neutral. For example, when describing literary alchemy, the article does not discuss its relative merits relative to other attitudes about alchemy. On the whole, there is very little in the argument's subject matter that is controversial, so it is generally able to avoid issues of non-neutrality.
The sources cited in this article are reliably cited with regards to historical context. However, with the absence of both descriptions of each work and citations relating to its use of alchemy, each referenced work requires more justification for its presence within the article. The sources primarily relate to academic books or journal articles relating to art history and art criticism, so they seem thorough. Most of the sources are not online, so very few links are available. However, the links seem reliable. No source listed is from the past decade, so the article may require updates to reflect novel art historians' discoveries.
As I have written earlier, the article's sections are generally solid and concise. The use of lists makes the article generally quite readable, and the spelling and grammar are sound. However, the section on film is not particularly well-written or organized, not relying on lists or historical eras, and the sections of comics and video games are made up almost entirely of lists. Some information regarding history of the media's relationship with alchemy would be greatly appreciated.
Images and Media
There exist three images. They are all individually captioned well, but the captioning is inconsistent. Each image appears to adhere to copyright regulations, with each image belonging to the common domain. The images are not visually unappealing, but they don't add much to the article's general layout. I would like some other images of visual media representing alchemy to add to the lists of examples.
The majority of the talk page is made up of users suggesting additions to the lists. Very few seem interested in improving the framework of the list, and many are simply adding items to the list due to simple mentions of alchemy. There exists one major issue, in which a file previously used on the page was not free to use, but it has been resolved. In short, there isn't much constructive discussion going on at this page's talk page.
As a whole, while this article provides much raw information, it doesn't go out of its way to explain what it presents. I'd like more sections like the one on "literary alchemy," but for other archetypes of alchemy-based art. On the whole, while the article is complete, it could be much more thorough. I'd like to see more than just simple mentions of works; this page would benefit greatly from explanations of each work's relation to alchemy: nominal, thematic, literal, etc. Overall, the article is not bad, but it isn't great either.
with four tildes — ~~~~
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
Overall, the lead to this article is excellent in its length and amount of detail. However, there are multiple extraneous details pertaining to specific sections while other sections have merely a passing mention. I would recommend balancing the space which each section takes up in the overall lead. For example, Terry Pratchett is mentioned by name despite not being particularly relevant to the article as a whole, while comics, cartoons, and film are not elaborated on.
The article provides many examples, sorted by medium and time period. The choice of separating works from different time periods into their own sections is excellent, as it allows the article to mention many of the similar characteristics of alchemy's inclusion at specific times and in specific media. However, I would like the article to possess short descriptions of the presence of alchemy in each work, explaining its attitude towards and treatment of alchemy. Additionally, lists of different attitudes towards alchemy in art are provided for many larger sections. However, these distinctions are not used. They could possibly be employed in order to explain the general attitudes possessed by each individual work. The content covers both the present day and the historical role of alchemy in art. However, the article on film could possess more specificity, although it does explain the traits of many films featuring alchemy.
The article is for the most part neutral. For example, when describing literary alchemy, the article does not discuss its relative merits relative to other attitudes about alchemy. On the whole, there is very little in the argument's subject matter that is controversial, so it is generally able to avoid issues of non-neutrality.
The sources cited in this article are reliably cited with regards to historical context. However, with the absence of both descriptions of each work and citations relating to its use of alchemy, each referenced work requires more justification for its presence within the article. The sources primarily relate to academic books or journal articles relating to art history and art criticism, so they seem thorough. Most of the sources are not online, so very few links are available. However, the links seem reliable. No source listed is from the past decade, so the article may require updates to reflect novel art historians' discoveries.
As I have written earlier, the article's sections are generally solid and concise. The use of lists makes the article generally quite readable, and the spelling and grammar are sound. However, the section on film is not particularly well-written or organized, not relying on lists or historical eras, and the sections of comics and video games are made up almost entirely of lists. Some information regarding history of the media's relationship with alchemy would be greatly appreciated.
Images and Media
There exist three images. They are all individually captioned well, but the captioning is inconsistent. Each image appears to adhere to copyright regulations, with each image belonging to the common domain. The images are not visually unappealing, but they don't add much to the article's general layout. I would like some other images of visual media representing alchemy to add to the lists of examples.
The majority of the talk page is made up of users suggesting additions to the lists. Very few seem interested in improving the framework of the list, and many are simply adding items to the list due to simple mentions of alchemy. There exists one major issue, in which a file previously used on the page was not free to use, but it has been resolved. In short, there isn't much constructive discussion going on at this page's talk page.
As a whole, while this article provides much raw information, it doesn't go out of its way to explain what it presents. I'd like more sections like the one on "literary alchemy," but for other archetypes of alchemy-based art. On the whole, while the article is complete, it could be much more thorough. I'd like to see more than just simple mentions of works; this page would benefit greatly from explanations of each work's relation to alchemy: nominal, thematic, literal, etc. Overall, the article is not bad, but it isn't great either.
with four tildes — ~~~~