User:KnightWolf8/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Selected as part of an assignment for a university course.

Lead Section
It seems that the lead here is a bit too eager to discuss just the impact and importance of digital rhetoric without really diving into what exactly it is in the first place. The overwhelming lead doesn't summarize the admittedly more organized sections to follow, and it also doesn't do enough to distinguish itself from the umbrella term of rhetoric. As such, while the citations and discussion of its complexities are appreciated, it feels more like I'm reading the conclusion of an essay and not the introduction to a topic I know little to nothing about. The end result is that some of the really concise and quality writing/topics to follow are overlooked when a reader immediately gives up ("Why bother reading on if I already am confused by what's supposed to be the most straightforward part of the page?").

Also, fyi, the "r" in "rhetoric" of the title should be capitalized.

Content
The various sections seem really solid in their overall organization; the text is nicely broken up as to not overwhelm the reader with abstract theory. Additionally, amble evidence from contemporary trends, scholars, and resources is included, as well as multicultural perspectives. One improvement that might be beneficial is to begin with the history section; assuming the lead does its job to provide a rough definition, the reader would greatly benefit from an overview of the context-dependent rise of this term and its intersections with various tech advancements and ideologies. Given the fluidity of the topic, demonstrating this key characteristics through content organization could really help the reader grasp potentially heady and elusive concepts.

Also, some of the images could do with more in-depth captions that really tie into the content at hand and aren't just random pretty things to scroll past (for example, that picture of books in the Legitimacy section).

Tone and Balance
The tone is generally neutral, however at times it feels like someone is overexcited to share information regarding cultural connections and possible applications. Some ideas need more citations and research (such as the claim of Reddit being used to empower groups), and the language isn't consistent throughout the page. Some sections feel more academic and pedagogical, whereas others sound a bit less formal (see Digital cultural rhetoric).

Sources and References
Certain sections are definitely more citation-heavy than others. However, even when ample sources are provided, certain sections overuse one source instead of branching out to find the same data expressed from different trusted readings. Given that this page doesn't deal with finnicky experimental data, there definitely is more out there to find on the topic. One glaring example of this is the Pedagogical Approaches section, where source #73 is used three times in direct succession (and thus almost the entirety of that section).

Otherwise, there's a lot of variety in the sources, with both older and very new works being used to explain the topic. The list is also quite impressive and boasts interdisciplinary analyses. That being said, certain sections still overuse some sources; the larger the topic, the more sources are proportionally required.

Organization and Writing Quality
Unfortunately, typos abound. Much of the capitalization, be it in section headers or the lead itself, is woefully lacking and quite distracting. As mentioned before, certain sections are rock-solid, but others need to be fine-tuned in their content (ex, the overwhelming lead) or grammar. Missing hyphens are also endemic, especially given the constant creation of new terminology and adjectives through concatenation for this rapidly evolving subject.

Images and Media
In general, the images chosen are thematically appropriate but either too few or not thoroughly described. Much of the article is a virtual desert when it comes to visuals and, although the text is nicely split up, the lack of pictures don't let this detail get fully utilized. Digital rhetoric is an idea and thus hard to come up with images for, but its applications (current events, tech crossovers, etc.) are everywhere and can easily be linked into whatever topic is at hand.

Talk Page
Overall, the talk page seems highly productive and occupied by well-meaning and well-educated Wikipedians. Several academic courses are linked to as having worked on this page, and what discourse is available is relevant and justified through evidence. That being said, some of the posts are rather old. Thankfully, there is still plenty of recent activity regarding this page.

Overall Impressions
In general, this article is a great start. It has a solid outline, neutral language, and a very large list of varied sources to comb over and add to. However, it's held back by a lack of direct bluntness in the lead, as well as overuse of certain sources and a lack of images throughout the page. Going forward, fixing typos will definitely be as important as providing immediate clarity of the complex topic at hand.