User:NEG22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Modern Rhetoric: Modern rhetoric - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I chose the article because the title (emphasizing 'modern') seemed pertinent to our class objective regarding the inclusion of voices and perspectives that have traditionally been absent in the study and consideration of rhetoric. It seemed that such an article would be more inclusive and present newer and different perspectives and approaches to rhetoric.

My preliminary impression is that the article was somewhat vague. It does not present enough information for a lay person why is interested in the field to understand what rhetoric is, what current issues lead to the rise of a modern rhetoric or exactly what distinguishes modern rhetoric from the traditional.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)


 * There is a warning banner at the top indicating there are multiple issues with the article.
 * The introductory sentence does adequately define or describe the topic.
 * The lead does not give sufficient information about the major sections of the article.
 * The article is outdated. Comments in the banner noting issues with the lead are over ten years old.
 * There are no conversations in the talk page indicating that this page has garnered any interest or that it is being updated.
 * Very few sources are cited. This is truly inadequate for a field as broad and as widely studied as rhetoric.
 * The article is not neutral. It seems that the author is making a case for modern rhetoric (albeit a weak case) rather than providing information on it.
 * In spite of the title 'Modern Rhetoric', this article does not include any information on current trends in rhetoric; it does not address contributions by or study of a variety of cultures.

Comments from Dr. Vetter
Nice evaluation here! - "Modern Rhetoric" is quite obviously in the purview of our course topic and would be an excellent candidate for updates for this class project. In addition to your criticisms - which I agree with for the most part, this article is too narrowly focused on just a few theorists, and doesn't provide a comprehensive overview of the topic nor does it provide any diversity in terms of what constitutes modern rhetoric or modern rhetorical theorists.

As you mentioned, the lead or first paragraph needs a lot of work, but I would actually do some work in the body first, and then travel back to the lead to make some changes. Do keep in mind that "modern" and "contemporary" are not the same thing. Typically, and in the context of rhetoric, modern means the latter half of the twentieth century excluding postmodern approaches. So it's a theoretical term as well as a temporal one.

Again, this would be an excellent topic to work on and I could help you with some sources should you choose to focus on this.

Best, Dr. Vetter DarthVetter (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)