User:Nultonc2/Evaluate an Article

The article I evaluated was Collaborative writing which is a "C" class article.


 * The lead section has an emphasis is on "group work" rather than as a "form of writing", or "teaching practice" or pedagogy. It does include a table of contents, but there is not a brief description of the article's major sections. The word choice does feel a little clunky and redundant, particularly in the initial sentence.
 * The definition seems more aligned with my understanding of the practiced based on my previous research. I'd give the definition an A+ for being articulate and thorough.


 * The history section is a single sentence with a reference to it becoming prominent in the 1980s--where's the other forty years of practice? How has it evolved? Perhaps that's one potential gap.
 * One statement that seems too sweeping is this, "Often, collaborative writing is used in instances where a workload would be overwhelming for one person to produce." In my experience the work is distributed to produce the best possible quality of text both in academia and in the workplace. I don't think it's only a strategy for in depth projects.
 * "Views on Collaborative Writing" seems too board given the information there (just two studies). One deals with ESL usage of collaborative writing (Storch, 2005) and the other deals with difficulties implementing collaborative writing (Palmeri). The ESL study is WAY too detailed. There's been more studies--why aren't they mentioned rather than focusing on just that one? It seems strange. I think the section should be named more appropriately or perhaps the usage of collaborative writing in education should be a further developed section with multiple sources on it's usage in education.
 * There's 23 sources. Only two of them are recent with the dates of 2017 and 2018. Most are from the 1990s and early 2000s.Many of the sources are on tools for collaborative writing rather than sources on the usage of collaborative writing.


 * There's no images or media
 * On the talk page, there is some debate about the word choice of co-authorship vs. co-creation. There are remarks about the study that was overly detailed and limited scope, and suggestions to cut it. I personally think there just needs to be more generalized benefits/cons based on studies and perhaps a further developed and separate section for collaborative writing in classroom settings. This quotes on the talk page from Loannetter about sums up my evaluation, "I would expect a page on collaborative writing on Wikipedia to be more extensive, after all a wiki is also a collaborative writing tool!"

Comments from Dr. Vetter
Nice evaluation here! This is actually one of the articles identified by the CCCC WIkipedia Initiative and WikiProject Writing as in need of development (and within our scope), so while it's not direclty in the purview of rhetorical history, certainly rhetorical/writing theory comes into play. This would be a great article to edit for the assignment in our class. I agree with all of your assessments. I would definitely like to see an expanded History section in particular, which would fit with our course, especially if you could do a broader sweep in the twentieth century (if not before). I can share some sources with you for this, if you do decide to work on it, just let me know. DarthVetter (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)