User:Cc3531/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I will evaluate Rhetoric.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I could not find any information about comparative world rhetorics (CWR). I also viewed the talk page and did not see any discussion of CWR. Though this article is already in the B-class, I feel that I can contribute by adding information about CWR, drawing primarily from The Routledge Handbook of Comparative World Rhetorics and Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks.

Evaluate the article

 * The lead focuses exclusively on Greek rhetoric, even though the history section states that rhetoric has its origins in Mesopotamia.
 * Comparative World Rhetoric (CWR) is not mentioned in the article.
 * Comparative World Rhetoric (CWR) is not mentioned in the Talk page.
 * The article does address historically underrepresented populations by including Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, and ancient China, in the history section.
 * The sub-section on Aristotle is under cited.
 * The sub-section on Quintilian does not include any sources.
 * The article is broken into sections, but it is not clear to me why the Canons section contains the following sub-sections: Medieval to Enlightenment, Sixteenth Century, Seventeenth Century, Eighteenth Century, and Nineteenth Century. These sub-sections appear to continue the history of rhetoric and may belong in the history section.
 * The article includes some pictures, but there are opportunities for more. For example, in the history section, one might add pictures relevant to Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, and/or ancient China.
 * The article could be improved by adding a section on CWR and perhaps by including the ways in which rhetoric was used in Hindu and African cultures.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
Nice evaluation here! This is obviously directly in the scope of our project and would be a great choice for editing. It's also on the list of articles that the CCCC Wikipedia Initiative and Wikiproject Writing Studies have identified as needed development. I love your idea to include a new section on comparative world rhetoric. I would think that the introduction in that book, and LuMing Mao's contribution especially would be useful. But you would want to also include a few other sources and think about how other terminologies have emerged, e.g. transnational rhetorics, comparative rhetoric, etc.

I agree with all of your assessments and I think that once you added some content in the body of the article, you could update the lead as well.

Again, this would be an excellent topic to work on and I could help you with some sources should you choose to focus on this. I would only caution that you don't try to take on too much! It is perfectly OK to make some additions and acknowledge that the article is problematic and can't be fixed in a single semester/single assignment.

Best, Dr. Vetter DarthVetter (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)