User:Blakemurray7/Evaluate an Article

ssWhich article are you evaluating?
Public Rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I wanted to select a topic that had a close correlation with the class along side allow myself to gain a deeper understanding about communication.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead
 * 2) * I feel like while the first sentence gives a good general idea of what public rhetoric is, the wording I believe is very heavy based on other definitions and might be somewhat difficult for someone who is unaware of such definitions.
 * 3) * The lead paragraph also does give a brief introduction into the major points to be discussed later within the site.
 * 4) * I found on information that wasn't correlated to the topic at hand or if it was briefly mentioned it was linked or explained in depth later on.
 * 5) * It is concise however I feel like the direct verbiage used correlates too much to topics that must be understood beforehand in order to fully grasp the meaning.


 * Content
 * The article's content is in line with that the topic is and I saw nothing that proved otherwise. While some examples were very drawn out they all had the central theme in mind.
 * All the content is up to date or uses examples that focus on general premises.
 * I found nothing about content being absent or anything that was simply out of line.
 * This article did touch upon the unrepresented African - American male population and its subjugation from police officers. It directly mentioned the BLM movement and the riots that followed the shooting of Michael Brown
 * Tone and Balance
 * I do believe the article is neutral as it provides a space to understand the topic rather than gather evidence against or for a certain viewpoint/mindset.
 * Even though there are only scare amount of references to modern movements BLM, I feel as if this point is used for the education and acknowledgement of what its root cause was rather providing a platform to spread its message.
 * It is shown that BLM is represented while other possible opposing viewpoints are not, however it is not brought up in the article as a point of attack but rather one of education and understand of such principles.
 * This article doesn't really mention or use "fringe" viewpoints or anything of that sort since its pretty neutral in all of the writing. Some concepts are not as well known but nothing really stood out as a minority viewpoint.
 * The article has no intention of swaying the audience since there is no main point to be swayed from. The information is purely for the education of the reader therefore no persuasive points are made or discussed.
 * Sources and References
 * All the sources used were both creditable and from secondary sources so there was no presence of misconstrued facts.
 * The provided sources are very throughout and attach themselves very well to the topic at hand.
 * The sources that were linked were current or is they were not "up tp date" they were referencing literature that was purposefully being linked to a time in the past.
 * The list of authors is diverse and as even though literature can be a somewhat male dominated field even today the article makes a very strong effort in order to make known of female and diverse authors and their influence. Although I was not able to identify anyone of historical marginalized background (simply my own realm of ignorance I believe not the authors) it still felt quite diverse.
 * I found nothing that was able to better represent the cited articles other then the present articles themselves.
 * Every link I clicked worked or brought me to the description of the book used in the citation.
 * Organization and writing quality
 * It is well written and easy to follow in terms of overall planning, however at times the wording can be somewhat confusing as it relies on pervious knowledge of the content.
 * I found nothing in terms of grammar or spelling as I was reading. I am not one to be known for my spelling or grammar usage in terms of accuracy but I found no major errors.
 * It is broken down in a well mannered system that allows a user to find what is needed but not get lot within the information.
 * Images and Media
 * No pictures are shown which does take away from the chance to enhance ones perspective on the topic. I believe there should of been at least some even if very loosely linked to the topic at hand.
 * No images therefore no captions
 * Np images therefore no regulations
 * No images therefore no chance to have any visual appeal.
 * Talk Page Discussion
 * No conversations are going on at all on the talk page, the only thing that was on the the talk page was a edit about the past students who made the page as a project within the teaching of rhetoric.
 * Its rated B with Mid level importance and is also within the "scope" of WikiProject Writing.
 * We have made a brief case about Rhetoric when it comes to the public sphere whereas the article goes into depth about the topic as a whole. Our class has mainly used the idea of public rhetoric as the place and opportunity to speak. On the other hand the article has gone over that point but also expanded the idea of speaking to use different groups and their purpose/style of discord, the place at which it happens (digitally, protests etc) and how changing ones view is popular form of using rhetoric.
 * Overall Impressions
 * The overall status of the article is pretty good but its upkeep and usage has been lackluster over the past few years. It has a good foundation but lacks the flair of most front page articles.
 * The article does a very good job of using the provided sources to make strong examples throughout its summary. The information present is both solid and easy to understand once you have gained a general understanding of Rhetoric as a whole.
 * Some improvements that could be made to the article boil down to the lack of overall flair presented with the article (pictures, diagrams etc.) relating to rhetoric. Along with that its busy use of rhetoric based wording can turn off or simply confuse individuals who are not used to or may not understand those rhetorical meanings.
 * The article is well developed, it got its B rating though hard work and very well cited articles along with the neutral statements that describe them. I would say its a complete article however I would not say it is amazing since it is lacking in the area of welcoming those who do not look for it. Its lack of overall appeal in pictures and daunting wording for those unaware of such meanings may keep it hidden from the public eye. The students who made this article initially did a fine job, making a well built page, cited articles however they lacked the care to make it more appealing.