User:BIGLOSERNERD666/sandbox

This is a sandbox review for the article Digital rhetoric

Digital rhetoric Article Review
_TOC_

Overview:
This article contains unlinked references to outdated and uncommon platforms, some outdated language, and a lack of updated content to reflect current platforms currently at the forefront of rhetorical content (e.g. current social media platforms). The organization of the article is poor, with "Concepts" becoming a list of vague references to anything from ancient Greek rhetorical concepts to aspects of a social media platform (such as an "avatar").

Neutrality:

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Content in the "political" discussion uses embellishing language when referring to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders' tweets which strongly implies a preference for one over the other: something which cannot be paraphrased from a source.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * While some aspects of "traditional rhetorical canon" are referenced, other aspects of visual rhetorical study have been left out of this article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Some sections seem to be lacking citation while others are perhaps based more on an editor's personal opinion, experience, or original research rather than existing research.

Reliability:

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Two citations refer to the same book, however one is the book itself and another is linked to an online PDF of the book within the WayBack Machine. I am not sure if this is allowed within Wikipedia's policies.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Surprisingly few conversations have taken place in the Talk page for this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated "S" for Start-class, clarifying that the article is in need of improvement. It is part of four WikiProjects: WikiProject Media, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Computing, and WikiProject Linguistics/Applied Linguistics. It also has been edited by several students like myself in the past for Wiki Education Foundation projects.

Related:

 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way it's been discussed in class?
 * This Wikipedia article does reference Douglas Eyeman, an author we have discussed in class, so in that way it is similar. However, its subcategories include a broad range of merely "digital" aspects (such as a section on the phenomenon of "avatars" on social media accounts) which may or may not be directly related to rhetoric. ~