User:Med20a/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Visual communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the Visual Communication article because it is under the umbrella of the communications discipline.

Evaluate the article
This article is comprehensive and detail-filled. However, one of the first things readers see is a box above the lead section that additional citations are needed in the article, and that isn't the best impression to make at the very top of the page. Other than that, the lead section is a broad overview of visual communication as a whole. The introductory paragraphs are just the right lengths- long enough to briefly explain the main elements of the topic, but not so long that it is exhaustive.

The overall content of this article is decent. Visual communication is such a broad subject that I thought it would be difficult to explain in a Wikipedia page, but the information presented allows for an easy yet introspective read. The authors placed enough weight on every aspect of this topic, from early figures associated with visual communication to the components that make it up. I think one of the most important parts of this article is the section that focuses on the motives that can be behind visual communication, be it political, cultural, or economic. Bringing information to that discussion is helpful when engaging in discourse around propaganda, or any kind of visual rhetoric. In that same vein, this article presents a neutral tone in reference to anything written. However, there truly could be so much more information presented on the topic.

As I mentioned before, one of the downfalls of this article is its apparent lack of adequate citations. While I was reading, I noticed there could be pretty significant jumps in paragraphs where there are no citations. There are only twenty-nine sources, which I feel like is a bit too concise for an entire page. Also, some of the links provided are no longer in use. Regardless, the sources presented are diverse, fairly current, and add a lot to the article itself. There is a mix of peer-reviewed journals, articles, and even a blog post about color in print. For the most part, these sources are alright, but they could definitely be improved upon.

The organization of this article is, I think, its most stand-out quality. It is written in a way that makes chronological sense, starting with an overview that leads into some history about it, then how to analyze it, the components that make up visual communication, and then its purposes and functions.The quality of the writing is appropriate for the space and is academic but approachable.

Ironically, there are only two images in this article. This is another element of the page that could be much improved. To the authors' credit, the images follow Wikipedia's copyright guidelines, and the first is a decent visual aide. The second image is basically worthless, and it would truly service this page if they offered more examples of what they are writing about. This may be the weakest element of the article because this topic especially would be much better represented if image examples were included.

This article's talk page was such an interesting find for me. It's cool to see how people's ideas converge around this page, and I found myself agreeing with much of the discussion happening. There are many recommendations, a call for researchers who are specialized in a related topic to aide in its addition to the article, and even an evaluation similar to this one.The article is rated as start-class and is a part of the graphic design, media, and systems WikiProjects.

Overall, this article is not the strongest it can be, but it still interested me. The organization and writing are great, but the scope of information, images, and citations could be improved. Beyond this page alone, it is truly an interesting exercise to evaluate a Wikipedia page in this manner. My favorite part was looking into the Talk page and seeing what other editors have to say. I look forward to learning more about this and feeling more comfortable doing this!