User:Khillm/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Digital rhetoric
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I selected this article to evaluate because we are learning about digital rhetoric in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence clearly and concisely describes a basic definition of digital rhetoric. The Lead includes a brief description on most of the article's major sections, but not all of them. There is a content box in the left corner displaying every topic that is covered in the article. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is concise, however it could have included more detail about rhetoric and politics.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the overall topic of digital rhetoric because there is a depth of background information on how rhetoric turned from print to digital. The content is up-to-date as well because most of the sources are from 2014-2018. There is no content that looks as if it does not belong in the article. Also, there is no content that seems to be missing.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article maintains a neutral tone and does not appear to try and persuade the reader in one direction. For the most part, the viewpoints are represented evenly and depicted as though the authors had a lot of collaboration.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used in the writing of this article range from old to current. Majority of the sources are from the past decade, with the most recent source being from 2018. Additionally, after checking a few links, all of them worked perfectly. The sources appear to be thorough and detailed because most of them come from peer-reviewed scholarly articles. The facts in the article are properly cited and appear to be backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is concise and clear, but it is not easy to read. The way that the information is laid out and organized in Wikipedia is a bit jumbled and not easy on the eyes. However, the article was free of grammatical or spelling errors. Also, although jumbled, the article did have helpful headings to direct the reader to the topic they want to read more about.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The article only includes one image that depicts a student typing on the computer in a classroom. More images could have been used in order to help readers get a better understanding of what digital rhetoric is. The caption for the single image is well-captioned. It is, captioned as "student using technology in the classroom." The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because the picture was taken by the owner of the page. Because there is only one image, it is hard to say if the images are laid out in a visually pleasing way, but the image is in the right corner away from text, so the image was visually pleasing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page conversations included changing the name of the article from eRhetoric to Digital Rhetoric, altering listing state names to a general "universities", among other things. The article is not rated very highly and it is a part of four WikiProjects. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we have talked about it in class because the article talks about the political aspect and history of rhetoric, which we have not yet talked about in class. In class, we have focused on the modern application of digital rhetoric to our every day lives, and not how rhetoric originated.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is well-developed because it utilizes many references and has many editors monitoring and critiquing what is written. After reading the article, I find myself to know more about digital rhetoric, but feel that the article could be more developed. It was good that the article includes a variety of information and details the history of rhetoric in print form to today's modern digital form. The article could be improved by adding more images so that the reader gets a better sense of what digital rhetoric is.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: