User:JamieBagman/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It was assigned to me.

Evaluate the article
 Lead Section 

The first sentence briefly informs the reader of the article's topic and contents. However, the introductory paragraph is somewhat verbose and does not clearly delineate what the sections covered are. It seems to focus a little bit too much on the history of digital rhetoric as opposed to an overview of the topic. Also, the snippet about ancient rhetoric is not found anywhere else in the article, so the detail is too niche for the introduction, which other editors also pointed out.

 Content 

The article sections are timely and relevant as is the content. For example, the forms discussion is up-to-date (social media and apps are widely used today). The specific details are as well: the final statistic under "Online Communities" was published in 2021. There are also direct references to equity gaps Wikipedia works to close/historically underserved groups: the first paragraph mentions references issues specific to South Asian women, the "Politics" section acknowledges social media's failure to serve "women and minority groups", etc. Ableism is also addressed later in the work.

 Tone and Balance 

The article details a great deal of information without blatant bias. Some statements that could be characterized as opinion are presented ("social media is not characterized as an ideal public sphere because it fails to provide equitable access to information and participation for women and minority groups") although it is supported by fact. It is also an underrepresented view, so traditional, harmful norms are not continually perpetuated with the statement. In addition, a section is included detailing the "shift from print to digital" and how Native Americans used detailed weaving technology to convey information. This is not traditionally thought of as technology, so it is great that the article is bringing light to technology outside the norm. But, none of these takes are articulated in a persuasive way. They are simply presented in the piece.

 Sources and References 

The article has 126 sources. For somewhat of a niche field, this appears to be a more than sufficient amount of research. Also, I know at least one is credible from reading it (such as Angela Haas' "Toward a Digital Rhetoric" and De Hertogh et. al. "'Feminist Leaning..."). In addition, other sources have associated dois or were published in journals/by universities, lending to their credibility. In addition, some of the sources are older, but most are from the 21st century. I also clicked several links and they functioned perfectly.

 Organization and Writing Quality 

There are clear headings and subheadings organizing the piece. Although the article is not extremely concise, there are many examples included (especially to do with politics) which makes it feel this way. It is also carefully edited and grammatically sound.

 Images and Media 

There are some images in the article, but many are irrelevant. The first picture of a person using a computer does not connect with topics covered in the introduction. Other images, such as the one of the Xbox and of the Wikipedia logo, do not serve the article in any way. However, a few of the images are helpful, such as the wampum belts picture.

 Talk Page Discussion 

The talk page is lengthy! It is clear a lot of thought has been put into this article's content and organization. It is included in many wiki projects, all of which gave it a low importance rating. However, I found the comment about technofeminism not being very relevant to the page to be very interesting, as our class takes the exact opposite stance.

 Overall Impressions 

Overall, this article is very detailed and informative. There are many examples to back up the points being made in the article, especially ones that pertain to politics. Because of this, I feel editor's efforts should be placed towards improving stubs and articles in need of repair. However, if I had to choose areas to improve, I would de-densify the introductory section and add more relevant images to the article (and remove the irrelevant ones). I would also consider fleshing out the "access" section to include more information on language barriers and ability/disability in terms of access, not just socioeconomic barriers.