User:Cdarcy234/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Visual communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because I want to learn more about visual communication. I already have some previous knowledge of sign language and how important visual communication can be. I have learned that the way people use facial cues and other expressive gestures helps to aid in communication. My first impression of the article was that it focuses more on drawings and graphics which intrigued me.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section:

This lead section provides a definition of visual communication as a whole, gives some background and then a brief overview of the passage. The lead sentence does start with a clear introduction that the article focuses on visual communication but only gives a definition. The article does mention to its major sections in the lead and give an overview of how they align. The lead is around the perfect length, including all relevant topics to the article.

Content:

Each subsection in the article is relevant to the topic of visual communication. The only section that felt somewhat out of place would be the important figures section. I feel as though it did not really tie into any other part of the article and did not explain their significance to visual communication. The information is mostly up to date as it ties in relevant parts of visual communication, such as social media. The article does not include a equity gap or talk about any underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance:

The article is very neutrally toned and does not seem to have any bias towards a position. All viewpoints have a fairly equal representation throughout the article. There are no minority viewpoints.

Sources and References:

This is one of the main sections were the article lacks. Not all facts in the article are backed up by sources and some of the links to sources are not working. Many sections of the article draw to a single source that does not have very much information on the topic and does not seem as a very reliable source. The sources are not thorough and have only about a paragraph of information on some. There is a wide variety of authors but not very well known or credited. Some of the websites seem rather random and that there are better sources.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is easy to read and concise. There seems to be no grammar or spelling issues. The article is well organized into subsections but includes many definitions that in some cases do not reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media:

There are only two images included in the article that do not enhance the understanding of the topic. The images are not well captioned as they include very few words and do not give any insight into where the photo came from. The images are placed in good parts of the article but are a little hard to read and understand.

Talk page discussion:

The talk page mostly discussed the need to update sources and switch out images in the article. It is rated a level 5 vital article and is apart of the following projects: graphic design, media, and systems. The way Wikipedia discusses the topic s more independent than from class. Seems more individualized than working as a group.

Overall impressions:

The article is a level 5 vital article and it required additional citations for verification. The article has good definitions and a clear, well written structure. It is easy to follow and states many varying topics. On the other hand, the article can be more up to date on sources and pull from more scholarly sources. The images can also be swapped out for more clear and relevant photos. The article is well developed.