User:Jalapinata/subpage

= Which article are you evaluating?= Digital Rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This topic is the very core of my ENGL491 class at University of Maryland: College Park. We are investigating language, information gaps, accreditation, terminology among other things. Our aim is to utilize an intersectional approach to Technofeminism both in and out of the classroom. To make spaces for a representative digital world to best serve a variety of individuals.

Content:
Under the section labeled "education" I would have liked to see the word intersectional instead the phrase "different backgrounds" [I edited it after I finished this, it was kind of bugging me]. I do wish that Technofeminism and the proceeding section on access was more expanded upon. Access is a huge deal. The layout and sections are very clear and easy to read and follow.

I have this sentiment with a lot of Wikipedia articles, why do we not get any photos? I know there are rules but we need more graphic content to level out densely worded pages. It gives the mind time to relax before going back to reading. If the page is a Starter Level this can give the push for the page to not look like a barren wasteland. Also, if were going to show pictures of events and pivotal figures it would serve us allto use images that best depict the said situation or person.

Tone:
This was well written. For me, it is a little too well written --not because I do not like well written work. It seems like if you have no familiarity with rhetoric you will be 'lost in the sauce'. I understand that we want a clear and expansive definition that takes into account of all the layers. At the same time, using certain kinds of elevated language can gatekeep certain people out of the very knowledge you want to be so expansive.

I do notice a sense of detachment in the speech as well. Again, not to say these things are bad. However, this is possibly why certain sections that need expanding are so small because contributors don't seem like they want to make the article a bit uncomfortable.

Sources:
I have to be honest, I do not see myself in any of the sources I looked at. I randomly picked about seven and looked up their scholastic backgrounds. I will say, it is progressive because a lot of women are in the medium. However, all is see is white cisgender women. I know that good work is being done but it seems limited. Another thing I noticed, is that all of the rhetorical references and examples were English and Western. There are a plethora of other cultures and regions who practice rhetoric both past and present. It would be nice to see it shown here.

Talk Page:
There is a lot of conversation going on here and its nice to see. Collaboration is key and so many things big and small are being discussed in the talk section.The thing that really caught my eye is a comment left by a user saying that Technofeminism and digital rhetoric have little correlation. This goes back to a lot of what we are talking about in class. I thought that was at the core of what we've been learning lately.