User:Ksuong2001/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Communication design

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I took a course on the development of communication technology and design last quarter and was curious to know what kind of information Wikipedia has to offer. Communication design matters because in our ever-changing digital age, it plays a crucial role in ensuring that the delivery of messages is effective within technology and information exchange in the media. Initially, I wanted to refrain from touching on a topic I am familiar with; however, I never had the chance to explore the topic on Wikipedia so I felt more intrigued to delve into it further. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was short in comparison to other articles in the category of communication studies. I also noticed that it contained numerous hyperlinks and the information provided is written in short paragraphs and lacks depth. The article also features a warning statement at the start of the first paragraph, communicating that the article has multiple issues as it may be "confusing or unclear" to readers. Additionally, it states that the article needs additional citations for verification.

Evaluate the article
In the article 'Communication Design' provides an adequate description of what it aims to discuss in its lead section. The article does not, however, include a brief description of the major sections; instead, it presents examples of what communication design refers to. The lead also includes information that is not present in the article. For example, in the third paragraph of the lead section it references "Guth and Brabham", who have examined the way that ideas compete within a crowdsourcing platform. Nonetheless, the article fails to elaborate and explore this piece of information. The article lead is neither concise or overly detailed and lacks a lot of basic or relevant information on the topic.

In terms of the articles tone and balance, it maintains a neutral point of view as it primarily focuses on offering a general idea of what communication design encompasses without expressing overt biases toward a particular viewpoint. The information presented by the article is balanced and doesn't seem to have heavily biases claims toward a particular position. Furthermore, the article contains a comprehensive overview of communication design, covering various aspects such as its definitions, approaches, education, subdisciplines, and examples. It doesn't overrepresent or underrepresent any particular viewpoint. The article focuses on mainstream concepts and practices within the field therefore, it doesn't seem to discuss any minority or fringe viewpoints within the context of communication design. It effectively presents information without advocating for any specific viewpoint and does not attempt to persuade its readers.

The article appears to rely on various sources to support its content. However, a closer examination is needed to ensure that all facts are indeed supported by reliable secondary sources. The article features a range of sources, offering insights that span from historical contexts to present-day perspectives, thereby providing a holistic view of the topic. The footnotes section comprises only 17 sources. While there is a diversity of authors represented, including Mark Askhus, Kristen L. Guth, and Daren Brabham, it's worth noting that multiple sources are authored by the same individuals. Because the article is based on providing factual information from various studies, without relying on news coverage or random websites, it does not contain any peer-reviewed articles. After checking over a few links, it is clear that they work and lead to the intended sources.

The article is easy to read, presenting information in a clear and concise manner. However, there may be areas where further clarity could enhance its quality. There are no glaring grammatical or spelling errors detected in the article. As for its organization, the article adequately distinguishes its sections that cover different facets of communication design. By doing so helps its readers navigate the content effectively and understand the major points of the topic. To provide a critique, the information lacks flow and structure with subtopics that are seemingly random. Without context provided in the lead section, the major points of the article can be unclear. The sections primarily provide a brief description and lists of examples; however, the structure of sentences are choppy and lack cohesion.

After analyzing 'Talk: Communication design', I observed that the conversations mainly centered around supporting previous work presented by suggesting methods to enhance the clarity and conciseness of the lead section. Contributors commented on editing grammatical errors, removing negative terminology, and adding more sources to corroborate information in the sections. The article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and it is of interest in the WikiProjects such as: Graphic design, Human-Computer Interaction, Journalism, Marketing and Advertising, Media, Typography, and Visual arts. Although we have briefly discussed this topic in class, we have yet to explore its intricacies and full implications.

Overall, the article provides a foundational overview of communication design, covering various aspects. While it demonstrates a commitment to accurate information, improvements in clarity and depth of coverage could enhance its comprehensiveness. It is moderately developed but would benefit from further expansion to provide more detailed insights into the topic.