User:Mshche11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
"Visual rhetoric and composition" - Visual rhetoric and composition

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article fits into one of my research interests - teaching visual rhetoric and multimodal composing in FYC. I looked through the Academic Discipline category provided by this exercise, and found a few articles within Visual Rhetoric category but this one was labeled as a Stub-Class article. Writing my QP on multimodal composing in FYC, I immediately noticed that the "Visual rhetoric and composition" article provides a very general overview, and there are many more aspects need to be discussed and considered when you're discussing visual rhetoric in the context of composition studies.

Evaluate the article

 * It seems that the Lead section needs a revision because it provides inaccurate information regarding "the role of visual rhetoric in the composition classroom [being] unclear". Over the last few years, visual rhetoric has been included in the FYC outcomes, prompting teachers and students to produce texts in various modes including pictures, videos, sounds, and/or mix of multiple modes.
 * Even though there are a few links and sources present, some links lead to other Wikipedia articles (which actually have "warning banners"). In addition, there are several sentences that can be examples of "gaps in sourcing" as indicated in the "Evaluating articles and sources" tutorial.
 * The article can benefit from additional sections because right now there is only one section - Teaching Visual Rhetoric and Composition. However, another article (Visual rhetoric) does offer the ways to analyze an image rhetorically which makes me question the importance of the current article and how different it should be from the Visual Rhetoric one.
 * Within that one available section, both paragraphs seem to repeat the same idea of how visual rhetoric can benefit FYC students in the ways they interpret and interact with the word around them. But again, no specifics/examples ae given.
 * For such complex topic, using 6 sources is not enough
 * Given that this article has to do with visual rhetoric, images must be included too
 * This article was published for a course (Wiki Ed/Auburn University at Montgomery/Successful Writing (F2019)) so I'm not sure if this would be a good choice for our Wikipedia assignment.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
Nice evaluation here! While it certainly would include some more contemporary discussions, this is within the scope of our project and would be a good choice for editing. The information about it being the subject of another Wiki Education course doesn't mean that its off limits for this course project, just that it has been worked on in the past (fall 2019 in this case) by another student editor like yourself.

I agree with all of your assessments. The lead needs work, and the article needs additional sections, information, and sources/citations. Even some of the references need cleaned up (I can show you how to do this). This would be a good one to work, and I welcome any improvements you would want to make!

Best, Dr. Vetter DarthVetter (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)