User:Simplyys13/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: Typography
 * I find the history of Typography very intriguing. There is so much enriched history into how this art came about.

Lead


The article has very strong lead that gets directly to the point of what the article is about. Within the lead there are a great amount of textual content used to introduce what some of the major sections of the article will focus on. The lead is a little overly detailed, some information given could be mentioned in major sections instead of the lead. That way the overall summary could be more concise. However, there is no misleading information in the leas that isn't present throughout the rest of the article.

Content

 * All the content presented is relevant to the topic. The article is constantly getting revised and updated based off of the edit history of this article.
 * All the content presented is relevant to the topic. The article is constantly getting revised and updated based off of the edit history of this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The tone of the article is very neutral, there weren't any serious biased position being taken by any of the content given throughout the article. Although there is a moment in the article under the Evolution section that it is persuading the reader to believe Steve Job is the reason for the misuse of the words typefaces and fonts. The statement quotes "Unfortunately, confusion between typeface and font (the various styles of a single typeface) occurred in 1984 when Steve Jobs mislabeled typefaces as fonts for Apple computers and his error has been perpetuated throughout the computer industry, leading to common misuse by the public of the term "font" when typeface is the proper term." Other than that there is a variety of viewpoints represented in the article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are a lot of sources and references to choose from, however not every single one of them is reliable asa secondary source. I clicked on about five of the sources listed and they were pretty broad and general. They weren't really direct links to the topic you had to search in the links to see if you could find something related to the topic. Also the articles has a need for more citations in certain text typeface section. When reading the article a little suggestion box appeared asking for me to help help cite that particular section.

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * In terms of organization the articles content set up was well thought out. The order in which the major sections are constructed go from past to present . You'll find out the history first, then go into how typefaces functions then to how they are used in the everyday world today. There weren't any recognizable grammatical or spelling errors in the article.

Images and Media
All images used are in reference to the topic and major section it was displayed for. All images do provide a detailed caption so you know exactly what you are looking at. The images do follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations all of the images are either cited as creative commons or in the public domain. Meaning all the images used are freely open to the public. The images all take a a format of presentation on the right side of the article with exception of only one photo being presented on the left.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * On the talk page there is an active amount of behind the scenes talking represented on this topic. There is talk about detailing the meaning of typography, modifications of external links, and a complain on plagiarism made in may from a section. It seems as if the section was lacking the citation of where the information was used from. Overall there isn't alot of activity in the talk but from what is there you can tell that everyone just wants to work collectively to create reliable article. There isn;t any hostile tones used, every one is working together and giving constructive feedback on things to help improve the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall the status of the article is reliable and well developed. I think its strengths is the sectional content, it really provides a great deal of useful information towards the topic. However, the article can improve on citations and providing better direct references as to where they get their information from.

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: