User:Nealeworm/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Typography :]

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As boring as it sounds and probably is for most, I have a lot of interest in Typography from an artistic and psychological point of view. For example, how does the visual design of certain fonts or textual aspects affect how we engage? I have a lot of preferences when it comes to typefaces, particularly because I am dyslexic, and certain fonts, such as the one I'm typing this in, are harder to read or keep me engaged and attentive to what I'm reading.

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 paragraph properly introduces the topic as well as similar bits and pieces of related aspects of Typography. It doesn't include a description of the sections right away, but it does briefly mention most if not all of the most important terminology that will later be discussed in the article. It does include a handful of related topics, specifically places, and professions that heavily divulge into the world of typography, but does not discuss them further in the article, however, I don't believe it would be necessary to do so anyway when those professions and such have their own corresponding pages and articles. Overall, I would consider the lead very concise and a generally well-written brief summary of Typography, of course, I'm already reasonably familiar with the topic so I might have a bias haha.

The article's content appears very relevant to the topic and stays pretty much on track through the whole page. Each section and sub-suction is well organized, and because it covers more of the general history of Typography, it also appears up-to-date. Given that the article is from the said general historical view, it is of course very neutral and unopinionated, for example, there's no "this experimental typeface is ugly" or anything.

This article has 56 citations with around 15~ general sources and 6 external links. The citations and general sources aren't exactly current, though there may not be a need for current sources when the article mostly goes over the history and origins of typography. The external links section does provide a few sources that appear to be from the past several years, with overall sources ranging from the 1980s to 2020.

Typography's talk page seems relatively current with comments as recent as June 2021. The discussions mostly seem to be about cleaning up the page and pages with related or connected content that previously needed further format editing.