User:FiveTymeWCW/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.


 * Name of article: (Digital rhetoric)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article as a requirement for class discussion

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead does clearly have an introductory sentence. The most simple definition of "digital rhetoric" is used by the author so the reader can get a basic understanding of the term.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is extremely relevant to the topic. The article links words to its wiki page that gives the reader a definition for unfamilar words. The article also lists all aspects of digital rhetoric, positive or negative. The arti

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is extremely neutral. There are no claims from any position. The article does list the positives and negatives of digital rhetoric, but It does not take a position on if it is good or bad. The article gives readers a balance point of view of the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
There are seventy-one sources. It appears that the authors are using academic journals as the article's sourse material. I would assume the journals are peer-reviewed.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
From what I see, the outline is simple and easy to navigate. The page is divided by uses and definition, history, and then concepts, with links to where the author gained their information from.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There is only one image used in the article. The image has a caption, but it doesn tell the reader anything. This article could have benefited from using more images. The article is about digital rhetoric, but it does not have more visual ways to describe digital rhetoric and the picture appears to be a stock image that a person could get anywhere.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This is a great start for the article. I believe that the information displayed is accurate to the author's best ability. The strengths are that the author keeps the article on the track of facts only. There is no editorial influence on the article. The article can be improved with more graphics and images to visually display more ways that digital rhetoric is used in modern society except for one simple photo of a girl on her laptop. The text of the article seems well done. The author could add a link to the Wikipage of Richard A. Lanham in the article. That way readers can click for some quick background of the rhetoricians the article references.

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: