Article Evaluation
..., but the authors are able to pull it off due to the subject matter. The authors discuss their main reason for writing the article - improving presentation skills. (Introduction section, 3). This section of the article is also a little awkward because another article is mentioned without going into much detail regarding it. All the authors say is that the article is still relevant. (Introduction section, 2). The article would be stronger if it dealt with the other article in some fashion. The section covering presentation myths is where the "meat" of the article can be found. Ten presentation myths are reviewed. Each myth is briefly explained and advice is given on how to avoid making common mistakes related to that particular myth. Each myth is interesting, but I focused on myth number 2: The Audience Cannot Read. (Common Presentation Myths section, 4 and 5). It discusses presenters that display or present script and then read it word for word. The authors state that outlines or notes are fine, but they should not be shared with the audience. (Common Presentation Myths, 5). The advice given by the authors is to use visual aids to "highlight key ideas" and keep the presentation as natural as possible. (Common Presentation Myths section, 5). This is sound advice. It can be annoying when a speaker treats his or her audience as though they cannot read. The future presentations section of the article is the weakest. It does not fit in with the rest of the article very well. It seems as though the authors added this section because they needed the article to be a little longer. This section also highlights how "old" this article is. The authors note that “multimedia presentations are clearly on the horizon for a growing number of presenters. (Future Presentations section, 2). Today multimedia presentations are more the norm rather than “on the horizon.” The article’s conclusion is very good. It provides the reader with several ideas on giving a successful pre...