User:Dreyfussa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article is relevant to a course I am currently enrolled in, and we have been assigned to evaluate this article.

Lead section
The lead section of the article was good. It established what digital rhetoric was and how it is evolving, allowing for the reader to gain a base-level understanding before delving further into the article.


 * 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
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and detailed, but not bogged down with irrelevant details.

Content
The content of the article was very good and very informative. The article did a good job with explaining the history of digital rhetoric, but spent a lot more time breaking down the different kinds of concepts. This helps the reader get a good understanding of its history, while still presenting all of the current iterations of digital rhetoric. Overall, the content of the article was very good and very informative.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * 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

Tone and Balance
The tone and balance of the article was well done. It was very clearly a neutral and fact-driven article, not using bias in any manner.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
The sources used on this page were highly academic, and there was a good amount of diversity within the selections made. There were a lot of sources used, with them coming from different places, showing that a lot of research had been done for this article.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing quality of the article was good, I did not have any major qualms with it.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part, yes.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I caught.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I believe it is. I liked how it broke up the concepts into their own sub-section, instead of trying to put all of them into one. I also like how for each section there were smaller sub-sections, allowing for the information to become more concise and detailed to that specific topic.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A few images, but nothing that elevates the page.
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really, they are off to the side and so small that you have to squint to read them.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I thought the talk section trying to expand on politics outside of America was interesting. Otherwise lots of talk about the organization and citations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I do not know
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not that greatly so far

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? Organization, good amount of information, good depth of sources.
 * How can the article be improved? Better visuals, maybe breaking up long walls of text with shorter paragraphs.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is a very well developed article full of good information.