Yes, it is a schematic.
In combination with the parts list OP gave in their own post, this conveys exactly the same information as a schematic from KiCad or on paper would.
The wiring is very clearly conveyed in this image, and it is supplied at a high resolution of 1080x1920 which allows to read the labels (e.g. port names) very clearly.
There are many cases where I understand why people get annoyed at low-res, poorly-organized Fritzing diagrams and in this case, I absolutely do not.
Couldn't agree more
You are not looking very close. Some of the pin labels are obscured by wires, the labels on the distance sensor are so tiny as to be almost unreadable (probably why the OP messed up the connections). There is no indication how the stepper board is powered. Or, how the entire system is powered. The stepper is unidentified. Actually, the only thing that is definitely identified is the Uno. Please don't encourage this nonsense.
There is also a missing ground on the stepper driver board.
Oh come off it? Are you a software engineer or what?
It is a physical layout diagram and only fit for a person who doesn't know what they are doing to recreate a circuit.
I know there are zealots who think that a physical layout diagram democratise electronics and by deskilling the process open it all to more people, this is pure buncombe. It is a view held by Hackster and perused by some of its associates with vigour.
What do you think about this thread?
The OP here doesn't even know what his real circuit is and expects us to fix things.
You should be annoyed. Call it a schematic if you like, but it doesn't conform to the convention of power+ at the top, power- at the bottom, inputs on the left, outputs on the right. It also shows, unnecessarily, the unused connections on the Uno.
I have a complete working circuit. My only issue here was purely and interference/electromagnetic waves issue, which I received some helpful answers on.
If you had a complete working circuit it would not have this problem that you have posted about. And is it true you don't actually know what this circuit is, but it is "close" to what you posted?
There seems to be a feeling that if the circuit functions it is working. Where as it might function it does not all the time, in grownups speak this is a not working circuit.
When I was a professional engineer the first CAD spin or iteration often functioned, but it never worked properly because it failed some vital aspect, like it didn't work to 70 degrees C, or it emitted too much radiation, or it was susceptible to interference, or it ran too hot.
Then the real work began.
And we had real schematics to help us in our work, you know schematics that actually showed the circuit, the only schematic type that actually counts.
Including some from me which you gleefully ignored.
Hateful rhetoric is not something I wish to partake in on educational forum.
I respect and take into consideration ALL comments I receive in relevance to the topic.
I don't want to hijack this persons topic while they get torn apart.
Has that issue been resolved, so you can tell everyone how you resolved it, as is customary on this forum, and mark it [solved]?
Hi,
[soapbox]
Sorry, no it isn't a schematic, can you imagine a car ECU or industrial controller drawn like that?
NASA would laugh if you used Fritzy to draw a LEM or Shuttle circuit diagram.
Fritzy may be okay to show how to CONNECT components at a basic level, but is not okay when it come to troubleshooting/fault finding and describing how the project works.
There are NO part NUMBERs or designators for a start apart for the Arduino.
Any written info is not readily readable due to its size.
You should not have to zoom in to read pin and component names.
A schematic comprises of internationally recognized symbols.
A schematic is clearer and when layed out properly can show signal and power flow.
[/soapbox]
Tom.... 
Ok. I will keep the progress updated. I commented back in my original topic.
Responding to a couple of posts at once.
Well, I am obviously better than you are at electronics, because I can read Fritzing diagrams and you can't. And you really need to step up your insults game as well, the last time someone tried to mock me for my interest in software development was all the way back when I was 15.
Given the level of vitriol you're pouring into this debate (and have poured into other debates on this topic in the past), I find it very funny that you're accusing others of zealotry.
So your problem isn't with Fritzing, it's with this diagram not following conventions which OP presumably doesn't know, and wouldn't have followed in a pen-and-paper diagram anyway.
What is and isn't a schematic isn't defined by NASA, nor is it defined by whether it is appropriate for an industrial component.
"A schematic, or schematic diagram, is a representation of the elements of a system using abstract, graphic symbols rather than realistic pictures. A schematic usually omits all details that are not relevant to the key information the schematic is intended to convey, and may include oversimplified elements in order to make this essential meaning easier to grasp."
Yeah, Fritzing setups generally are a lot less abstract than a proper circuit diagram, but they are still simplified, for example in regards to wire layout.
And that is beside the point - what I care about is that many Fritzing images are perfectly suitable for conveying the setup of a simple-ish electronic circuit, that almost all the common problems with Fritzing images can be replicated by poorly-drawn circuit diagrams as well, that I believe the whole "we can't help you with this picture" is a case of the oldsters on this forum being deliberately obtuse in order to put up barriers of entry and show the newbies who's the boss.
Next time you see a Fritzing diagram that is overall readable but lacks pin labels on one device, instead of ranting how Fritzing is garbage and OP is garbage for using it and needs to completely redo it from scratch in a visual language they are not familiar with, how about you point out to OP instead what the problems with their actual diagram are and ask them to amend whatever information is missing?
Thank you for recognizing that I, a electronic genius, am perfect at finding errors in circuit diagrams!
... no, I would not because I don't have much practice at reading circuit diagrams and generally stop looking for errors once I have found one or two (that's how I work when coding as well).
Maybe OP would have spotted and self-corrected that in a real circuit diagram, but... I mean, the issue of the floating ground is absolutely clear in this Fritzing diagram as well.
I think it's safe to end the discussion right there.
Yes, if you can't recognize the obvious sarcasm, that is probably for the best.
You have missed the point. This diagram, and many others like it, waste valuable time. They are insufficient for a beginner to represent and understand a simple circuit, for the same reasons they would be insufficient for an expert to represent a complex circuit.
It is not difficult to learn to read and write schematics, in fact it is beginner stuff. I learned it as a 9 year old child, and at that time it was inconceivable to anyone that you could do electronics at all without learning them. The advent of CAD technology hasn't diluted their basic power or functionality at all.
Mostly what we see here is not proper Fritzing, it's abuse of Fritzing. The layout module, when used correctly, can show the physical layout and tie it to a schematic which is it's intended use, and works well when done carefully. But that is not what we commonly see.
I haven't missed the point, I just don't think there is any truth to this.
You haven't been on the forum long enough to see the proof.
That was not hateful rhetoric, it was simply telling you like it is.
When were you elected for the office of objective arbiter of truth?
It's funny how new people on this forum will just get told off and have their threads locked and posts erased for openly speaking their minds but the established people can pass off open hostility towards new users as "telling it like it is".
Now that is offensive.