User:ShellieHu/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA 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.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit](Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I am interested in visual communication. Since it contains a relatively broad scope of topics and has been evolving over time, I would like to explore how this concept can be best represented. My preliminary impression of visual communication is the way people use visual elements to convey ideas and information, and it should be multidisciplinary.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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.)
Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. There are many interesting points that I have never thought of. However, in the History section, I wonder if more information about how visual communication has evolved from print to screen could be included, and maybe with some interpretation of Eye of Horus (as it is significant in visual culture) among other historically significant topics. Also, visual communication should not be limited to 2D, so there could be more evaluation on multidimensional visual communication.
The article is largely neutral, but there could be more diversity in important figures in the Overview section, as the two representative figures are European males. The Culture section doesn't expand much but only stick with on high and low-context cultures. Such binary classification might underrepresent many nuances. The negative influences of visual communication in science and medicine might need more clarity, since different scientific fields might need different approach to solving the problem, far more complicated than what are listed in this section.The citation sources are relatively up to date -- majority of them are from 2010s, but I still expect for a greater range of authorship not only limited to English-speaking countries.