User:Psu431editor/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Visual communication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. The topic seemed interesting and talks about understanding through visual cues and images.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead is easy to understand and talks about the different types of visual communications.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead includes the categories that can be classified as visual communication but does not describe them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It includes links to different pages, some of which are not discussed in depth.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is short and concise while listing the categories that can be referred to as forms of visual communication.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, they talk about forms of visuals throughout the article, explaining some with references and pictures.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, there is information that is relatively modern and the most recent reference dating 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The "Study" section can be expanded on to detail the things mentioned in there, and sign language may be a form of visual communication not included in the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? They do not talk about populations but the article includes a part about how images can be understood differently depending on cultures and perspectives. Perhaps the hard of hearing could be mentioned since they rely on visual communication to interact with others.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, i did not notice any biases in the text. Even the pros/cons list was balanced equally to show the actuality of the visual types.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? None that I have noticed after reading through it.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article is written neutrally without using viewpoints but mentions that certain perspectives can influence visual communications.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The text is not persuasive but rather informative and tries to educate readers on types of visuals.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all the facts are backed up, but it is mostly seen in the pros/cons list in the "Visual Elements" section where a lot of the material is opinionated and does not back up statements with sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Most of the sources were reputable from university publications, but some sources were from online websites/blogs and one source did not even work for me.
 * Are the sources current? There are some current sources and some old (1981-2018).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are many different authors and sources regarding the visual spectrum.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most of the links i checked work, but only one link did not grant me access while requiring login information. It is also missing a title.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the information is well-written and easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I noticed some errors while reading through but nothing major that would make it illegible.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is split up evenly and organizes its information cleanly.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Images are only included in the beginning which is strange considering it is an article about visual communications. I would expect it to include many more images/visuals.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the included images are explained and captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they include clickable citations for their sources.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They were all placed at the beginning, but they would be more appealing if spread throughout the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? One section talks about expanding on the phrases used in the lead/introduction since some of them are not referenced in the article. Also that images need to be more sourced and the overview was lacking on information. Another person is asking for the inclusion of 'clade diagrams' used in business that was not represented in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a Start-Class and it is included in WikiProjects Graphic design, systems, and media.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It mostly just presents information while not detailing how it is used in study or it is lacking in the overview and introduction sections

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a level-5 vital article in an unknown topic.
 * What are the article's strengths? It includes many different types of visual communication that people may not be aware of.
 * How can the article be improved? It does not expand on the sections effectively, and it is missing a lot of content which is why it is rated as Start-Class.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is under-developed because it is missing a few things that I have mentioned above and from the Talk section. It needs better explanations in the different sections, but I think it has a lot of basic information that can be improved on.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: