User:Aerimars/Evaluate an Article/Digital Rhetoric

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Digital Rhetotic
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. As a member of a digital rhetoric course, I have started to accumulate knowledge within this area and want to do my part to help make the article stronger.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there is a creative, concise way of hinting at what is to come in the article applied here.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is fairly concise.

==== Lead evaluation: In just two paragraphs, the Lead does a great just at introducing digital rhetoric and the kinds of details the article will detail on the subject. There is room for minor improvements for flow and perhaps some rephrasing/rewording. ====

Content
Guiding questions




 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? For the most part. There is new information out about the global pandemic which could be included in the "shift from print to digital" section of the history sub-section to emphasize the further point.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article touches upon technofeminism and access to the digital world briefly.

==== Content evaluation: The content in this article was very detailed and covered a broad range of relevant information. The article was missing some recent information, so it needs a bit of updating. Overall, the article does a great job of concisely introducing the span of digital rhetoric. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Almost all the digital scholars and rhetoricians name dropped in the article were White, so I think there was a clearly Western-centric bias overriding the piece. There is a need for more diverse names and contributions to the subject to be represented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: The article is very well done in tone. There is a need for a diversification of the scholarship and scholars highlighted in the article to create a more holistic view of the subject at large. ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most, there are some waiting on citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, although (given the nature of the subject) there is room for updated sourcing in some cases.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is definitely a whitewashing of the sources. There is a need for more diverse authorship.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

==== Sources and references evaluation: The article features an extensive reference section and is well noted in the body of the article. The sources come from a wide range of literary minds in the field, however there are some missing citations and a lack of diversity in the sources provided. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some sentence-level changes I would make to help the flow of the text.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

==== Organization evaluation: The article is well-written and well-organized overall. There are some sentence-level changes that could be made to make the article flow and read better, but no spelling errors that I noticed. ====

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are three images included which do help to break up the monotony of the article, but only one enhances the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

==== Images and media evaluation: The article felt a bit empty in regards to images and media, but the three images chosen did help in some way. All of the images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, so there were no issues on the legal front. ====

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There were conversations happening about condensing and eliminating unnecessary bits of information included in various sections of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is a part of five different WikiProjects and is rated start-class of low-importance in all except WikiProject Writing which ranked it of high-importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Our class is more concerned with the technofeminist lens of digital rhetoric, so we exist mostly inside that bubble. Wikipedia is much more macro in scale with its concerns and conversations about the subject.

==== Talk page evaluation: There is a lot of talking that has gone on behind the scenes of this article. Many different WikiProjects are concerned with the content of this article, so there is a lot of overlap in the scholarly domain. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article overall is well-done.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is heavily referenced and condensed a lot of topics that fall within the scope of digital rhetoric into concise and organized sections.
 * How can the article be improved? The article could use some more diversity in the minds and and scholars it pays tribute or makes reference to as well as some light reworking of some sentences.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very well-developed.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Digital rhetoric