User:Jgriffin094/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Design studies (link)
 * When I took Design Thinking as a Sophomore I was the only Art History major among a group of Graphic Design majors in the course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead effectively describes Design Studies in a precise manner within its topic sentence. It does a strong job of briefly introducing and describing some of the founders and key theorists involved with Design Studies, whose roles are expanded on in the body of the article. The Lead mentions institutions that offer Masters programs in Design Studies, but only makes reference in the article to two of the four institutions listed. Despite this, the Lead is concisely-written with little fluff.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. Many resources used for the article were last accessed in 2017, such as peer-reviewed sources and information degree programs at academic institutions. While the article mostly focuses on historical sources from the 1980s to 1990s, the views of writers from as recent as 2009, 2012, and 2014 are used, as well. The content used within each section is wholly pertinent to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is written from a neutral standpoint, presenting overviews of the ideas of prominent Design Studies theorists to guide much of the content. As a result, there is little bias regarding the present theories within the article's tone. However, some descriptions of journals within the list of Design Studies journals were taken word-for-word from a given journal's main page on their website, which can lead to some bias (ex. Journal of Design History described as "leading journal"). The balance within the content present in the work seems to be well-struck, however, the article's lack of balance comes from some sections of the article not having any content (ex. Design Studies and Ethics with two paragraphs whereas Design Studies and Sustainment: Environmental and Social is left blank; in the list of journals some journals have descriptions while many do not).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content in the article appears to be largely driven by content from outside sources, and therefore, the content present appears to be reliable. Many of the sources used are primary sources, including essays written by Design Studies theorists. While the article does a good job of balancing primary and secondary sources, it could stand to include a few more different authors of secondary sources from the 21st century. Many sources are current and do work, however one source retrieved in 2017 was linked to an error page.


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is well-written, easy to read, and concise. It does a strong job of pivoting to different sub-topics within Design Studies and explaining each with clarity. My readings of the article did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized into sections including Design Studies theories, influential theorists, and journals. The only issue may be a lack of uniform style of punctuation and presentation in the "Foundational Figures" section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes one image within its introduction to constitute the entirety of its media. The caption appears to concisely describe the purpose of the image. It adheres to copyright regulations and is laid out in a way that is not intrusive to the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations in the talk page were interesting to read. The bulk of the feedback came from one user, who, judging from the username of the article's original author, the information in the biography of the reviewer's personal page, and the thorough nature of the user's feedback, may have academic ties the person (likely a student given their username) who initially wrote the article. I'm not sure if saving this part for the end was beneficial or deleterious to my stance on the article, as the feedback made me think of potential bias in the article through a lens I had not considered. Does the inclusion of certain, specific viewpoints about Design Studies without a possible alternative view on said matter present bias, or is it simply a method of presenting the diversification of the worldly views within the discipline? It was also interesting to see the contrast between how the main reviewer presented their feedback versus how other users presented theirs. The reviewer's criticism was thorough, thought-provoking, and seemed to give the author a fair chance at addressing the concerns within the article, while others presented their criticism that was more dismissive of certain sections at their core. The article is rated C-class, and is tied to four WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is currently rated C-class. The strengths of the article are tied to its formal level of writing, its diverse range of primary and secondary sources, and its concise form of presenting details. While its conciseness in some sections is a strength, its precision on honing in on what would be the most important pieces of information is not. Some sections that lack detail and lists that rely on names to show authority could be trimmed or admitted altogether. As a whole, the article is well-developed, and offers solid ground for the history and viewpoints associated with Design Studies.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: