assets/templates/critique-checklist.md

# Visualization Critique Checklist

- Does the title state an insight, claim, contrast, or question rather than only naming the data?
- Is the key comparison visually dominant?
- Are scales, units, and aggregation choices trustworthy?
- Is uncertainty or missingness shown where it matters?
- Are labels and keys discoverable without hover or a distant legend?
- If a legend exists, is it inside or immediately adjacent to the chart it explains?
- Is color meaningful, restrained, and accessible?
- Do annotations explain why the data matters instead of restating values?
- If imagery, illustration, 3D, or animation appears, does it explain scale, place, mechanism, motion, or stakes?
- Does the default view feel composed as a visual argument rather than a grid of chart boxes?
- Would the first frame and final frame work as still images?
- Would small multiples or a table improve clarity?
- Does the chart still work in export, grayscale, and a 360-430 px mobile width?
- Does the mobile first screen show the main visualization or make it immediately available?
- Is the mobile version intentionally designed rather than a desktop layout stacked by DOM order?
- Are touch targets, hover replacement, drag alternatives, pinch/zoom ownership, and keyboard-open behavior accounted for?
- For streaming or remote data, are stale, offline, partial, and reconnect states visible without blanking the chart?
- If AR, camera, motion, vibration, notifications, or geolocation are used, do they have analytical purpose, user-initiated permission timing, and fallbacks?
- Is the work original to this dataset and audience rather than borrowed from a publication's visual identity?
- For conflict, disaster, displacement, civilian harm, migration, political violence, or humanitarian work, are dates, source hierarchy, evidence status, caveats, and humane framing visible enough to prevent spectacle or false precision?