User:Thaonguyen050300/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Graphic design

I will be evaluating the article about Graphic Design, which is in the WikiProject list, and one of my interests as well.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
When I was looking around for a list of articles to work on in the future, I did select through topics in WikiProject and stumble upon 'Graphic Design', which is one of my deep interests. I love aesthetics and how graphic design is displayed through words (typography), order, use of color, contrast, complementary, law of balance applied into making it a piece of art, or sometimes an ad, marketing campaign, logo, branding of a corporate, an identity. It's so beautiful that world of character, beauty and practicality in the visual age nowadays. It matters to me because I am able to understand myself better, and my feelings, emotions in the field of graphic design - how people react or think when seeing a graphic page, layout, design? and how it would connect them emotionally.

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.)

Lead Section

The lead section is very well-drafted with a concise, adequate introductory sentence with great keywords. It does mention about what graphic design exactly is and how it does fall into a 'branch of design' with a specific existing purpose at the moment. It's quite overly detailed.

Content

The content goes from the history of graphic design through other interdisciplinary areas where graphic design got inspired from. Different historical periods of time are written, and the twentieth century part needs more expansion, by how other societal forces - political, economical, etc. affecting the evolution of graphic design. The tools part need more variety/elaboration from computers and software.

Tone and Balance

The balance is not quite well-established because some parts have more insights than others. The article is pretty neutral. Some of the viewpoints/facts are underrepresented.

Sources and References

There are a handful of sources and references, mostly through books as credentials and design-related websites. The sources do come from a diverse array of authors and publications.

Organization and Writing Quality

The organization is alright but it is not quite logical when putting up the 'applications' part right after the introduction. It should be pushed down, or replaced with a better sub-head.

There are some parts of writing that are quite biased and one-sided about the field of graphic design, particularly graphic designers in their daily routine of work. The article could be elaborated and developed more on the course of trends/patterns in graphic design implemented over time.

Images and Media

The images are limited, and not really put in a big picture, but different small pictures to match up with some keywords, which may not that matter.

Talk page discussion

The talk surrounds the input of more aesthetic pictures to describe the world of graphic design. Some mention about sub-branches of design, and origin of the term, with indicated sources. Some are comments on the capitalization of the word and its meaning.

Overall impressions

Overall, the article is developed thoroughly some of its key concepts, but it does need more work and contributions. I believe that graphic design is quite important to the millennials these days. It could be greatly useful when 'graphic design' is given a place for its existence with special characteristics and its own nature.