User:GraberM/Evaluate an Article

Type here?

Which article are you evaluating?
Cognitive rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I picked this from a list of articles related to composition and English studies. This one had content related to rhetoric and was identified as a page that needed work. Plus, I feel like I don't really know what I'm doing.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

LEAD SECTION

The lead section broadly identifies the topic of cognitive rhetoric but doesn't include a detailed definition of cognitive rhetoric. A table of contents exists on the page, but no description of each section exists in the lead section.

Yes - the lead does include references to sections that are not included in the article (rhetoric and pedagogy). The lead is perhaps overly concise and lacks relevant details contextualizing the topic and its scope.

CONTENT:

The content seems relevant at a glance but isn't consistently (or really at all, that I can see) cited in text. The works cited are mostly from cognitive rhetorical theorists like Flowers and Hayes, but nothing in the text looks like theory from Flowers or Hayes. James Berlin is cited in the references and mentioned, but details about his theoretical contributions are missing and nothing on his scholarship is summarized or concluded. This page looks like it might be new or something that was started but not quite finished.

Although this topic does not directly address an equity gap or address a historically underrepresented population, the topic does contribute significance to the field of composition and (I argue) rhetoric. Flowers, Hayes, Berlin, Gibbs, and Bruner were the only theorists mentioned with which I feel somewhat familiar with their theories, but the content mostly sites the Greek tradition (in particular, techne--which I thought was weird because I think this mostly has to do with performativity or the art of discourse).

Interdisciplinarity is mentioned under a heading "Language and literary sciences." Only mentions of "parabolic meaning" are listed as available literary devises in cognitive rhetoric.

TONE:

Statements like this, "Such narrative flow is a highly adaptive process" suggest the entry is not entirely informative and leans to analytical responses to preferred theory. In one sentence, computer science and oral history were lumped together. I found this awkward and couldn't quite figure out how the sentence worked together to marry the past and the present. More differentiation about the history of cognitivism, related rhetoric, applications in literature, and theorists could clarity some of the terms used later in the text. The history section is particularly bouncy--the points bounce around making the statements confusing.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES:

There are no in text sources or carats. There are some links, but they don't link to the references; the links take the user to the wiki-page of the word or person mentioned. I was very confused because I thought the references listed had to be mentioned or linked in the article, but they aren't in this one.

Although sources are written by individuals I perceive as relevant to the field, sources could also be significantly expanded. The current concentration on the Greeks doesn't seem appropriate for the topic. Little on cognitivism or cognitive constructionism is mentioned. This history should also be represented. For example, theorists like Piaget, Bandura, Vygotsky, and Butler should be referenced, along with their theoretical contributions and frameworks. None of these theorists are mentioned.

Most of the links work, but the links are not to the sources.

ORGANIZATION:

The page looks how I would expect a wiki entry to look, but lacks development. The pieces of information seem like arbitrary page markers. The content lists 9 topic areas:


 * 1History
 * 2Composition
 * 3Language and literary studies
 * 4Related work
 * 5Key terms
 * 6Notable researchers
 * 6.1Cognitive rhetoric
 * 6.2Social-cognitive rhetoric
 * 6.3Social-epistemic rhetoric
 * 6.4Cognitive poetics
 * 7See also
 * 8References
 * 8.1Cognitive rhetoric
 * 8.2Cognitive rhetoric, composition, and pedagogy
 * 9External links
 * 9.1Cognitive rhetoric
 * 9.2Cognitive rhetoric, composition, and pedagogy

However, additional sub components could be included in each area. Additional areas could be added to include theoretical frameworks and pedagogical contributions. Also, language and literary studies could be separated. Implications to both language and literary studies could be quite broad. This entry focuses on metaphor, but rhetorical contributions to literature could be significantly expanded. Also I would think these would focus on or could branch into areas where composition and linguistics intersect rhetorical strategies (such as code switching and translanguaging, transfer and metacognition in writing, maybe other things).

IMAGES AND MEDIA

The site I reviewed did not have images or media on them. No copyright or related media were cited.

TALK PAGE

This is a wiki-project. (I am just finding that out.) Apparently, this is someone else's class project, but there is low to no conversation and maintenance going on. THe page was last updated on 11/24.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

The page says to improve with citations, but I think more is needed to inform readers about the history of cognitive theorists, the history of rhetorical theory, and the convergence of the two. While I think this is/would be an interesting project, I also think this is a significant undertaking and would require quite a dedicating a significant time to the gathering of resources and writing of the page. I also think producing this page would result in multiple other page productions.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
hello - wonderfully thorough and smart evaluation of this article. Although it's not quite a historical subject, I think it would be a wonderful article to work on. It is obviously in need of development, and you listed multiple ways that it can be improved! Remember that you don't need to feel responsible for COMPLETELY finishing the article/or bringing it up to good quality on your own. Rather, you can take on a few different tasks as you are able and then when you're finished, leave a message on the talk page about other things that could be done to improve the article. I would definitely think that working on in-line citations, adding a few new sections and sources, and removing inappropriate or irrelevant content (e.g. the focus on Greek techne). You might also do a little to improve upon the tone by revising analytical/original research statements such as the one you've identified. All of this to say that is is OK to just improve bits and pieces of the article so don't feel too overwhelmed!

DarthVetter (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)