User:Sprinklebob/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Graphic communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose Graphic communication because it is a recently chosen minor of mine and I would like to learn more about what it entails in a broader sense. This article matters because it provides relevant information pertaining to Graphic communication which is useful to anyone interested in the field, especially since graphic communications is a growing branch of communications with the rise of digital media. My preliminary impression was that the page is a bit shorter than I would have thought it would be. The history section is extremely brief. I thought the beginning paragraph outlining the description of graphic communications was well executed.

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 does well describing what Graphic Communications is while being concise. It does not, however, give an overview of the article's major sections. The lead does not mention the history of graphic communications or the topics included in graphic communications. Also, the lead includes a few details that are not mentioned in the article such as a description of graphic elements or what the process of graphic communications entails. Most of the information contained in the article is relevant to the topic. There are certain areas where the information provided may not be necessary. In the Overview section, there is a sentence attributed to the description of Graphic Design within the other sentences describing Graphic Communications. This could be misleading as Graphic Design is not the same as Graphic Communications, therefore, the description of graphic design would not be necessary in this overview section, but instead best left under the section titled Graphic communications topics. One confusing and distracting element of the article is the sidebar to the right of the page that is titled "Information Mapping." The article itself has no mention of information mapping or what it is other than this random implementation of the sidebar which provides no description, only other articles that mention information mapping. The History section of the article is the weakest point. The only history of graphic communications that the article provides is a brief mention of the first known type of graphic communication back from prehistoric times. This is a deeply underdeveloped section of the article. It has no information relevant to how graphic communications became a job field or scholarly field. It also makes no mention of who the top players are in such a history. Therefore, marginalized people are not mentioned at all in this history, nor is anyone from modern times. The only mention of a female that we see in this article is under the See Also section, with a link to Rosemary Sassoon, the inventor of the Sassoon series of typefaces. One of the article's strengths is that it does keep a neutral tone. None of the phrasing seems to be lopsided or biased. The sources are not optimal for a Wikipedia article. The first source, which provides the definition of Graphic Communications, has a link that does not link to an active webpage. When you click the archived link next to it, it leads you to a webpage that is archived on the web and no longer active, which is questionable and means the definition is not up to date. Two of the sources link to non existent pages. The sources are definitely an issue and not up to date. They do not reflect relevant literature on the subject in many places, with only two of the sources appearing to be solid and credible. There is a much better page for the description of Graphic communications from https://www.communications-major.com/graphic-communications/ this website is described as an "unbiased resource for communications students and those that aspire to studying the art and science of communication." It provides the definition of what graphic communications is and what universities offer this kind of program. As far as organization goes, there could be more sections added. Like I mentioned earlier, the lead mentions design elements and the graphic communications design process, but there are no sections in the article that elaborate on these topics. These would be relevant topics to add to the page. There are grammatical issues within the article as well. There are multiple run on sentences. Sometimes both Graphic and Communications is capitalized when discussing Graphic Communications, at other points communications is not capitalized. There is a point where neither is capitalized and the writer refers to the topic as "graphics communications" which is the incorrect name. There is not much being said about this article on the Talk Page. It is important to note, however, that it is rated C-class, which makes sense considering the clear issues with the article. Overall, I think the article had an okay lead and overview where the reader gets the general sense of what Graphic Communications means. As the article goes on, it is underdeveloped, irrelevant in places, and organizationally messy. The article does not give a full scope of what Graphic Communications entails or what its history is. It should include more sections for topics relevant to Graphic Communications such as the design process, the terms relevant to design, deeper understanding of what jobs and fields use Graphic Communications, and what function it has in society.