User:LeedsCarleton1234/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will be reviewing the article written on Fred Smeijers, a Dutch designer.

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.)

The article touched upon a subject of my interest, had a 'Start' rating on Wikipedia, and seemed not too difficult to evaluate. Reviewing this article matters because it describes a person, so there should not be any inaccuracies or any unclear parts. My first impression is that it is quite a short article, with a very short introduction. The article has many links in the text, and a decent amount of citations.

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.)

The lead section contains a good introduction with a clear overview of the basic information on the person. The information featured in the article is summed up in a few sentences, and contains no new information. However, it could be a little more informative, by adding some extra information about the persons life. The article as a whole is quite short, so the lead section does not really contain much information. It is written concisely and clear.

The content of the article is lacking. There is significant information lacking, such as the last book written by Smeijers: "Between Writing and Type: The Stencil Letter". The content of the article is relevant to the topic, although some information could be explored more, such as Smeijer's books, the prizes he won (what did he win them for?), and the topics that his research at the universities includes. The content of the article is probably also slightly outdated, though this cannot be said with certainty due to the lack of detail on many parts. The latest date mentioned in the article is 2019, and the last added reference was added in 2020, so it can be assumed that the information is quite outdated. No underrepresented populations or topics are addressed in the article.

The article does not seem to be biased, or trying to steer people into a certain way of thinking. It does not convince the reader of certain viewpoints. The content of the article is not very balanced, with a heavy focus on the typefaces that Smeijers designed, and almost no information provided about his academic career and the books he has written.

There are no sources provided for Smeijers' career, which makes it impossible for us to verify. There is no verification possible for the mentioned collaboration between Smeijers and brands such as Samsung. The references that are listed consist of a big part of websites of institutions where Smeijers is (or has been) active himself, which cannot be deemed reliable. There are more sources available on the web, though these are few. The links on the reference list are active.

There are some errors in the text. The style of writing could be improved, halfway through, a list of typefaces designed by Smeijers is given, but there are no bulletpoints and only one supporting images, which makes it a big blob of names and links. The author did not break the text up into smaller parts, except for a seperate paragraph designated to Smeijers' publications.

There is one photo of Smeijers, and one supporting image of a typeface he designed, but there is no image on the other information in the text, though Smeijers has an Instagram page, and there are multiple photos on the internet. The photo of Smeijers does not have a reference, though the typeface image does. The images are situated on the right of the page, which does not break up the text in any way and makes it not very appealing to look at.

There is no discussion going on in the Talk page. The article is rated Start, and a part of the WikiProject Typography. The article should mostly be more detailed and structured better, and make use of better sources on the topic.

The article is clearly a Start article, since there is a significant lack of information and structure. The lead section is alright, and there is a lot of information available on Fred Smeijers, it just has to be improved structurally. The article is very poorly developed.

Feedback
Good work! Chronophoto (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)