User:Clovaas01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Kyoto design declaration)

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 it because it was a design article and I'm in a graphic design history class. As well as the fact that non-eurocentric design topics are not often spoken about. The article's pretty empty, no images or anything. Very short read.

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.)


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything seemed to be relevant, and the segments were short so there wasn't any room to be distracted by non-relevant things I think.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * A majority of the references at the bottom were retrieved in 2011, which is far too outdated for this article.
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * Despite it being the Kyoto design declaration a lot of the discussion revolves around the European side of the Cumulus (Finland, Denmark, London etc).
 * What else could be improved?
 * There's a segment where they're listing things and they use '-' as a bullet marker but they didn't actually make it a list vertically its still horizontal and it's bothering me visually.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not very much text on the article but seems to be very neutral. However, it does seem to be skewed a lot towards talking about Helsinki...
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The Kyoto part of the Kyoto design declaration.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Of the ones used, only one is completely gone. The rest are either there or sourced from the wayback machine. They link out to the main website as opposed to a specific location so it's a bit hard to tell what exactly in that entire website is going to back them up.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Sure? Seems a little flimsy in terms of why they're using them and there's no direct quotation which I think this article needed. Most of the sources are from websites (and link to the homepage) involved with the article's content, so I suppose it's neutral..ish?
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
 * Eh? I think they all technically come from different locations but the content is mostly the same.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There's no talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * No.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There's no talk page!