User:Lucymobe/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 chose this article because it's the premise of our class, and I'd like to put my new knowledge to use.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it focuses on rhetoric as a whole too much. But maybe that's necessary in order to understand the context of digital rhetoric.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * To me, it seems like a collection of terminology related to digital rhetoric. It reads like a glossary of terms, rather than an article on digital rhetoric itself.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * There are always new types of technology that affect the study of digital rhetoric. I'm sure this article could be updated daily to reflect the changes in the field.  That being said, the article does a decent job of incorporating things like social media.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The Controversies part could be edited to include inclusivity and gender issues within digital rhetoric.
 * Politics and education are indeed things that are affected by digital rhetoric, but they seemed arbitrarily selected. They are also way too long and detailed for the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes I think so?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not that I can tell, with my limited understanding of the field of digital rhetoric.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * U.S. politics is overrepresented. I see they took some political opinions out, which is good, but why is there still so much information about U.S. politics?  Not everyone can relate to that.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but some parts of the article rely too heavily on a single source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No-- see above.
 * I would like to see something about the Computers and Composition journal. And something about the TechnoFeminism book.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes I think so?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the sentences themselves are clear, but the organization could use some work (see third bullet point).
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It's too long. Many of the subtopics could just be links to their own pages. The article seems less about digital rhetoric and more about things related to digital rhetoric.
 * History should come earlier in the article.
 * Why is politics so long and so U.S.-focused?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes-- it's kind of a boring picture so I'm not sure how much better you could caption it.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There's only one.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * People were addressing the issues with the politics section in the talk page. They removed some unnecessary information about Trump's tweets.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Can't find the rating. WikiEd project.
 * WikiProject Media, Philosophy, Linguistics, Computing
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't talked a whole lot about different theories or terms within digital rhetoric in class, but it seems to be the entire focus of the article. Also, in class we've established that pretty much anything can incorporate digital rhetoric these days-- Wikipedia lists two (education and politics) and seems to think that's enough.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start-class?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Number of people working on it and watching it! It gets a lot of attention...
 * How can the article be improved?
 * ...but that attention needs to be a little more focused. We need some experts, too, not just students who are encountering digital rhetoric for the first time.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped. Maybe even poorly developed if you are considering the organization of everything.

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: