User:Mcooley509/Evaluate an Article

This is an evaluation of communication design article.

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
Is the content up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status?
What are the article's strengths?
How can the article be improved?
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Communication design

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 to evaluate this article because communication design seems important in the context of this class. This article is also flagged for having many issues and is rated as Start-Class, meaning there is a lot of room for improvement. This article is also of interest to multiple WikiProjects, meaning the content is relevant and important for some groups and should be improved. After reading the article, my initial impression was that it was poorly written with confusing structure.

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 introductory description of the topic is not clear nor concise. The wording is confusing and does not introduce the topic in a helpful way. The lead section also discusses ideas that are not included in the body of the article, such as "a systems-based approach" and "a framework for Communication as Design." Either sections should be added in the body to expand on these ideas, or these sentences should be removed from the lead section.

Content

The article's content is relevant, though it could be more robust. A major topic that could be further developed related to communication design is how this discipline is used in organizations or businesses. It is briefly touched on how the goal of communication design is to influence some desired outcome by presenting a message to an audience in a certain way, but I think this section could be expanded to show the big role communication design plays in marketing plans and business goals.

Tone and Balance

This article appears to be balanced and provide a neutral view. The only thing of note is a sentence in the lead section that discusses a piece of research that examines the way "democratic ideals" are built into the design of communication technology. Having this in the lead section seems random and irrelevant. However, I think the topic of politics and communication is interesting and would be helpful for readers to understand, so this would have to be further developed in a distinct section that shows both sides equally.

Sources and References

References seem to be from reputable sources, and links work when provided. Because important information/detail is missing in the content of the article, it can be said that the sources are not thorough. Most sources are current, though one is from 1975, one is from 1997, and a few are from the early 2000s. These could be updated with newer references.

Organization and Writing Quality

The quality of the writing struck me immediately. The author(s) seem to be trying to use technical/professional language but it makes the text hard to understand. Clear, concise language would be best in this context. The article also has few sections, meaning the information covered in each section is very broad and could be organized more narrowly. Additionally, there are noticeable grammatical errors and missing words.

Images and Media

There are no images or media, which is interesting because this is a topic that centers around the design of communications in all formats, including visual communication.

Talk Page Discussion

There are no conversations on the talk page. The article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, Wikipedia:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia:WikiProject Typography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts.

Overall Impressions

Overall, this article could benefit from improvement in expansion of topics, more current resources, and grammatical editing. It is currently rated as Start-Class and is underdeveloped. There is a lot of information surrounding the topic of communication design and the ideas are touched on in this article, but they could be developed in a clearer way. Editing for grammar and missing words will also be important in solidifying the article's credibility. General conciseness and wording could also be improved.