User:Rhetoricanista/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: (link) Rhetoric of health and medicine
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I currently am teaching a graduate course on this topic. I'm building my awareness of this subfield of rhetoric. I'm interested to understand why the page has a C rating, and I'm curious about whether it makes sense that it falls within WikiProject Medicine.

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? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead provides good information but does not parallel the content in the body of the article, which seems to be the primary problem with this section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date? No.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes.

Content evaluation
The content of the article is relevant to the topic, but the category is so large that the included information seems to present some detailed pieces of information while leaving out other information. A broader and more general article might be more useful--one that leverages links to point to more detailed content. There is a major journal (named Rhetoric of Health and Medicine) is entirely missing from the page, and an annual seminar is incorrectly named. One of the journal and seminar co-editors is completely absent from the page. The research methods section has no mention of rhetorical theoretical/interpretive methods, which is a key oversight.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is effective in terms of being neutral. Overall, there seems to be an underrepresentation of rhetorical/theoretical methods or mixed methods, which reflects a bias in favor of more scientific, quantitative, or qualitative methods.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Most sources are academic publications or related web sites, so they are accurate and trustworthy. Information is backed up with sources--there are citations throughout the article. Sources are fairly current. Most worked--I only found one that did not.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The writing is precise and accessible. The organization makes sense, although arguably it could be changed to be more effective. This seems to be a subjective point, though.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
No images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated C-class and was accepted in 2014. It was part of the WikiProject Articles for creation. It is currently falls within the scope of WikiProject Medicine and is rated low importance. It has a C-class rating. There is no conversation about the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is detailed and thorough. The subject area is changing (relatively rapidly in comparison with other academic disciplines), so the content should be updated. More editors would help to make the content more fully representative of the subject. All of the information included seems accurate; the opportunities here seem to be for updating, refocusing, and adding information. I am conflicted about the rating vis-a-vi-s WikiProject Medicine (and the page's relationship to that project) because it potentially reflects an act of marginalizing a subject based on hierarchies and assumptions of (Western) medicine.

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: Talk:Rhetoric of health and medicine