User:McEngl491/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 (Digital rhetoric)
 * This article was assigned to me by my teacher to edit. The topic of this article relates to the topic of the course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The leading paragraph is short and concise. It provides a thorough definition of both digital rhetoric and rhetoric. It touches on the history, concepts, and controversies related to the topic. All of which are expanded upon in the rest of the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The majority of the content explains definitions and history related to the topic of digital rhetoric, so it is extremely relevant. The majority of the sources for the content is from the last ten years. This shows that the content is up to date and relevant. Overall, the content is cohesive and it does not seem like any major/relevant information is missing.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. The majority of the article consists of objective definitions and histories of rhetoric and digital rhetoric. The article also cites definitions from a variety of different sources, providing many viewpoints for one definition. Considering I do not know much about the study of digital rhetoric, it is hard for me to know if any major information or opinions are missing.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All sources are current and reliable, and all the links work. Each source is presented and cited properly throughout the article.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is very easy to follow. The structure is effective because definitions and history of the topic is introduced first. This helps provide the reader with necessary knowledge to understand the content and controversies. I did not notice an major grammatical or spelling errors.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article only uses one image at the beginning of the text. The caption is vague and does not directly relate to image to the content of the article. I think the article could have used more images that help enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This Wiki page was used for a variety of course assignments.The majority of the discussions on the talk page are related to the content of the article. People are discussing the changes they made as well as additional changes that could be made. The content is similar to what we have discussed in class, however this page provides a lot more definitions and perspectives.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I believe this is a solid article that is very complete. The article has very strong and thorough definitions and histories. I think some of the history could be expanded upon. The history of rhetoric itself could be explained more.


 * 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?

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: