User:AnnieWang1/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Rhetoric: (Rhetoric)
 * I've taken a few rhetoric classes before, and I believe rhetoric is somewhat related to linguistics as a whole (the exercise had explicitly stated to pick a field related to my course). I believe I'll have enough to say about rhetoric not being just about persuasiveness but affecting an audience to view your stance on a matter.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

While the page does have a concise and clear statement, rhetoric is far more complex than being an "art of persuasion." The lead, which I believe is referring to the introduction, did not specify many of the the major sections (e.g. the French influences, which had its own lengthy section at the end). Although, it did mention the other topics that were in the article. Like previously mentioned, it was much too short for a topic such as this and only gave a vague understanding of the term without acknowledging the criticisms and theory behind it.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the content went beyond cultural conceptions of rhetoric and spoke of individual rhetoricians all the way up to the present figures of the field. I don't believe there is anything that does not belong, but there should be a separate section on ethos, pathos, and logos; I personally thought that those terms were scattered across the page haphazardly when they should be under its own separate heading. Those terms are generally what people think of when they define the term rhetoric and should, therefore, be more pertinent.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Yes, I believe it was neutral. However, I found that there was some bias when regarding religion, in that, I believe there should've been more on that subject. I also didn't see much mention of political rhetoric; in the recent era of political dissonance, there is much to say on that topic. The same could be said for social culture, media, and the like. As a whole, I didn't feel persuaded toward one stance or another.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes, the sources are reliable and many of them current. The links work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

It is very easy to read, and i didn't find any grammatical errors. However, the sections are a bit haphazard and don't flow very well into one another. For instance, putting "Animal Rhetoric" under a section just titled "French" was strange.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The images didn't really do much for the topic, as most of them were figureheads of rhetoric, and I admit that rhetoric is more of an abstract topic. thus, finding images for it is difficult. Albeit, they are well-captioned and very informative. I believe they are within the copyright regulations, as well. They are spaced throughout the article in an odd way; most of the images are in the beginning with almost none at the end.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * They are talking mostly about the relevancy of the defined terms in rhetoric and the rhetoricians given. It's rated B-class with mid-relevancy. It is part of three WikiProjects, as in philosophy, linguistics and literature. As for the third topic, we haven't talked about rhetoric, so I'm not sure what to say about it. Although, it other classes, it's quite similar. Most students give a statement of their opinion, and we talk about it under a wider heading or greater meaning outside of it, just as the Talk page is ordered.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article could do with more information. It did well with the theorization and critical thought of it, but it needed more political, religious, and media presence. Thus, I believe it's just a little underdeveloped. There is justa lot more that could've been said.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly 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:Rhetoric