User:Marma033/Evaluate an article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

·        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? (It shouldn't.)

·        Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

·        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?

·        Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

·        Is the article neutral?

·        Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

·        Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

·        Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

·        Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

·        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?

·        Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

·        Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

·        Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

·        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?

Images and Media

·        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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

·        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?

Overall impressions

·        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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

·        Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The reason for choosing this article in all honesty is because it stood out to me specifically out of some of the other articles there. Visual communication sounds interesting from the name of it. It matters to me since I am a visual learner; therefore, a visual communicator. Depicted from the title itself, I could imagine where the article would lead to, but was also surprised to some things I may not have thought to have been included, like graphic design. My impression of the article from the visual image added already catches my attention with the little cartoon character Charlie Brown. I find it comical, all and all, interesting.

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 article on Visual communication, which is cited at the bottom of this analysis, starts with a introductory sentence that briefly, but concisely define the article’s topic. It is not detailed, and that sentence alone can tell a reader what the article will be about. It is subject to help the reader understand the components of such a topic. The article also portrays brief descriptions of the article’s major sections. For example, the components of visual communication are briefly said to be, “color, shape, tones, texture, figure-ground, balance, and hierarchy” (Visual communication, 1st paragraph). As all the major sections in the article are spoken of in the lead section, there aren’t any information there that isn’t in the overall article. Instead, there are added subjects such as a brief section on important figures, image analysis, and so on. Overall, the lead is concise and not overly detailed on information.

Moving on to the content of the article, it is all relevant to the topic. Starting from the overview to the “Prominence and motive” in all aspects relating to the topic. The content is not missing anything that isn’t written and spoken of in the article; therefore, it is up to date. The article doesn’t speak on any equity gaps based on Wikipedia, nor does it address historically underrepresented populations or topics. Everything seems straightforward and staying on topic, and not being sidetracked.

In terms of neutrality, the article seems fairly for that concept. However, there seems to be sections in which either citation is needed, or there is an unreliable source from a specific information. I cannot tell if that information, such as important figures, culture relating to visual communication, are reliable or not. For the most part, everything seems to be all based on facts as there are citations for most information there. There are some viewpoints that would be considered a bit underrepresented based on the thickness of the paragraph. Viewpoints such as culture, economics, and important figures. Other than those three, the major sections about visual communication seems well covered. There are no minority viewpoints, and the article seems to be on point in all sections and does not try to convey readers on one point of view while disregarding another.

As for credibility, some of the sources in the article, if any, are not cited as there are spots saying that a cited source is needed, or that there is a possibility for self-publishing source which is not allowed on Wikipedia. There is another section in which mentions that a source is unreliable. Those things do need fixing for people would want to verify such claims if not cited properly. The sources that are cited are relatively thorough and provide information on the respective subject being discussed. The sources seem to be current; however, even if cited, those article sources seem to be missing citations and seem to have many other issues. The source links do work and do seem to be on some level of spectrum, although it’s only 2 authors mentioned. One author was an English writer named Aldous Huxley and the other an Austro-Hungarian psychologist named Max Wertheimer. History for both authors is not clear, but on psychologist Wertheimer, him being Austro-Hungarian, I would say he was probably forced to be assimilated into Hungarian culture; therefore, maybe was marginalized. As I’ve seen that there are sources that also need verification, I would say there are other sources that would be better to use, such as university or college libraries for better versions and results. For example, the source on the article based on “Gestalt psychology” has issues on Wikipedia; however, on uOttawa library, there are different versions on this, as well as peer-reviewed content.

Based on organization and writing quality of the article, everything is readable to a scholarly level of speech. All of it are clear to read and understand, and there are no spelling or grammatical errors. The organization of the article is concise and broken down into heading and subheadings which indicates to a reader what exactly is being discussed.

The article does contain two images that just adds on to the understanding of the text. They’re not detailed enough to say everything but show what is being said. For example, there’s a section on social media, and a picture is added of keyboards containing some major social media icons such Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and more. The images are well captioned to show why they are being portrayed. The social media image is marked, “Major Social Media Apps,” while the other is captioned on how the visual communication process goes. The images do go towards following Wikipedia’s regulations since the images are not from a long excerpt of something else and are linked to show the details on them. The images are not extravagant, but I do like something from the first one. The first one Is portrayed with words on it, in a detailed manner, but is also funny in terms of the cartoon used and some bubble words too. There are not many images, which is alright; however, I feel a bit more would brighten up the page.

There aren’t any conversations about how the topic is to be presented on Wikipedia; however, there are revision headings in which current ones are for the author of the article to add more reliable sources on the article. As seen in this analysis, it is a recurring issue that needs tending. The article is rated high of importance as it is part of some WikiProjects. The projects listed are WikiProject Graphic design, WikiProjects Media, and WikiProjects Systems. As per to what was discussed in class, this article is a reminder of the film “The Mean World Syndrome:” in which both are on visual communication. The visuals based on the film is on TV violence and how it speaks to people this way, that is how this article can relate to the class. Other than that, media really has a big impact on people from the way things are portrayed and everyone learns differently from the portrayals. In the article, there is a subheading on technical perspective, and that is on how lights and composure are used to portray things. That speaks closely to how visual communication is portrayed through any types of media.

As an overall look at this article, it does show 50/50 regarding truth and uncertainty. The strengths of this article are mainly the neutral tone that it keeps, the concisely done lead section, the few images added, the neutral explanations of the sections, and some more. The weaknesses, however, is the uncertainty of it all. There are a few places where sources are needed, but were not provided, and that is what needs to be improved on the most. Other than that big part on credibility, the article is well developed in terms of format and explanations.

Wikipedia contributors. (2022, September 19). Visual communication. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:48, October 13, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visual_communication&oldid=1111153347