User:Arianecrepeau/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Design studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Firstly, I chose a brief academic article because it applies to the goal of the course, which is to teach where interior design started. Also, who are the popular figures that made it noticeable in history and made it evolve through history? Furthermore, it isn't too long to analyze and all the Wikipedia notions are new so I think it will be easier to go over a small article and not a very long and exhaustive one.

Evaluate the article
The lead is not overly detailed. It adequately defines the subject of the academic article. On the other hand, it doesn't contain a brief description or enumeration of the present section following. It might be a little too concise. It could be more informative as it's the first thing researchers read to give them an idea of the subject and what information they can find about it.

The article seems well written. The source seems valuable to the article and is recent mostly(1982 to 2017). Multiple sources were used and all seem reliable. There are a couple of books that have cited sources and some links to PDFs of news articles from design studies that seem legitimate. However, the links are not from random websites as explained previously. The website of the societies section is linked too.

The article, from my understanding, is written in a neutral tone. The subject is described without a viewpoint and explains the difference between design studies and studying design. The key figures of design studies are mostly references in the original history, which makes the list of foundational figures relevant to the article and used to understand their part in the history of it all.

On the other hand, I have difficulty understanding the characteristics and scopes section and its relevancy. That section gathers multiple components and voice that explains the same idea. It could be synthesized a little more. I got lost in the design process, two perspectives part of it.

The article seems well-organized and minimalist in images and media. The image has a description, which explains his purpose and why it's edited into the article. It also makes the article less naked and more appealing. Also, it looks more reliable in a way and more complete. The article doesn't seem to have errors in writing or spelling from my perspective.

Next, the talk page has been inactive for a long time, at least since 2017. The article could also need some improvement from the discussions on the page and his rating. It is rated C-class. It would need improvement and more clarity. A lot was done, for example, the important figure was more of a list before. It has been shorten, and some dates of birth or death were added, which makes people relevant to their time and generation.

My overall perspective and evaluation of the article, from the talk page and the rating, is it might have some bias to offer one perspective of design studies. The article has information based on organization and papers that might not be relevant to all world perspectives. I think a well-developed subject that needs more reliable information is less based on work from organizations or writers from papers. But it has a good structure to add those new information or to rework it.