User:Hoopscoach22/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It does share some key details, but not too many. Overall, it is concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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? This particular article mentions the way that social media fails to provide equal access to access or information to both women and minority groups, so yes.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * 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
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not every single thing, but the majority.
 * 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? From my judgement- yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I don't think so. There were many links to notable websites and references.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I did not find any.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I liked that it was broken down into subheadings such as Uses, Education, and Politics.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? People were very respectful of each other in the talk page. The edits usually consisted or grammatical or organizational changes.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I am not sure how to find its rating. I found it from the Academic Disciplines page.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Not much so far, but this gives a more broad definition, while we will be diving deeper into the topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Concise and informative
 * What are the article's strengths? Organization, such as the use of clear subheadings, as well as good examples and easy to understand explanations.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can break up the paragraphs a little bit into smaller, easier to read ones. This will make it easier for readers to understand the gist of digital rhetoric at a quick glance.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very well-developed.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

I think that the article would greatly improved if the large, intimidating paragraphs are broken up into smaller, more easily digestible ones. I think this because Wikipedia is designed to be a site to find out the most important information about a topic, as quickly as possible.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Digital rhetoric)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is a topic we have already begun to learn about in class. I thought it would be smart to work through this exercise while also getting to read more about digital rhetoric.

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.)

This Wikipedia article about what Digital Rhetoric is was very, very well done. It begins with a considerable topic statement that explains what exactly Digital Rhetoric is, in the broadest terms possible. One thing that I really appreciated about the article was how detailed it was. Through just glancing at the article and its accompanying Talk Page, it was clear that many authors put a lot of effort into making this a credible, informative page. There were historical concepts, definitions, and up to date controversies all individually explained and then tied back to digital rhetoric. This allowed the reader to fully understand the concept.