User:Invictamaneo/Evaluate an Article

= Evaluation of Digital Rhetoric Article =

Lead Section
This section doesn't touch upon all the sections that follow. It reads more like a handful of editors disagreeing with each other about what digital rhetoric is and includes an irrelevant definition of rhetoric itself.

Content
There is entirely too much information in this article that is of only passing relevance to the over-arching topic. The sub-section on Politics is longer than almost everything else, and its information isn't well articulated or cohesive.

Tone and Balance
A line that caught my eye was "The challenge with social media has increased since the rise of 'cancel culture', which aims to end the career of the culprit through any means possible, mainly the boycott of their works." This sentence was sourced by a Vox article about cancel culture, and didn't seem to serve much to further to conversation on digital rhetoric, but rather appeared in relative isolation. The section on Technofeminism vaguely made the statement that "There is an important of digital activism for unrepresented communities." What does "importance" imply there? The section on conspiracy theories failed to tie in well with the concept of digital rhetoric, and rather looked like it belonged on the Wikipedia page for conspiracy theories, or was just an overenthusiastic take-down of conspiracy theorists.

Sources and References
The fact that there are 126 sources in this article does more to support the idea that there is too much, and too random, information in it than to indicate that it is a well-supported discussion of digital rhetoric.

Organization and Writing Quality
There is very little organization within subsections. One gets the impression that multiple editors jumped in and out adding random sentences (such as the aforementioned blurb about "cancel culture").

Images and Media
Images are largely irrelevant, including such pictures as an X-Box and a woman sitting at a computer.

Talk Page Discussion
It seems that there has been some back-and-forth about the relevance of parts of the article, an issue that I would definitely address.

Overall Impressions
This article is unnecessarily long and lacks continuous focus on the topic of digital rhetoric itself. Whenever something adjacent to digital rhetoric comes up, it is expounded upon until the concept of digital rhetoric is lost (such as in the Politics and Misinformation/disinformation sections). In this way, the article's strength is its weakness—it definitely touches on several areas that are affected by or that affect digital rhetoric—it just gets a little too enthusiastic about doing so and loses its way.