User:SamMeurer/Evaluate an Article

Article: Digital Rhetoric (Digital rhetoric)

Evaluated: 2/21/2020

= Evaluating Lead =


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describe's 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?

Lead Evaluation

The lead for this article is concise and effective. It describes a clear definition of digital rhetoric to start and moves into a brief description of the history of digital rhetoric and its place in contemporary society as well as the academic discipline of rhetoric and composition. I do feel that the lead, near the end, could've been shortened and more of this information could've been incorporated into the article itself. This two paragraph structure makes the lead seem rather dense; however, the lead, overall, was an interesting read and is effective in capturing the reader's attention on the subject by briefly describing all the major sections of the article: Uses, Histories, and Concepts.

= Evaluating Content =


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?

Content Evaluation

Everything in the article seems to be relevant to the article topic. The information is up to date, but the latest reference to contemporary society seems to be from 2017 (within the article). Considering rhetoric and rhetoric studies is still a rising field, I was happy with the content included in this article. I feel that it effectively showcased the practical uses for digital rhetorics. I wish more studies/research would've been included for applicability sake, but I enjoyed the nice range of information, nonetheless.

= Evaluating Tone =


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Tone Evaluation

I believe that the article is rather neutral in tone. I don't see any particular sections where there is heavy bias included in the text itself. With an article on an academic discipline, I feel like it is harder to incorporate bias into such a concrete topic. I do think there was potential for bias in the Concepts category. Authors could've been less forthcoming with information about digital rhetorics practical uses in the world, instead, choosing to incorporate more controversies. This would construct a negative connotation for digital rhetoric. However, I am happy that a wide range of concepts are included to show digital rhetorics full potential in contemporary society.

= Evaluating Sources =


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Source Evaluation

70 total citations. Of the 10 links I clicked on, all 10 links worked. Many sources are from articles included in academic journals. reinforcing the credibility of the content in the article. The sources directly relate to the content in the article and support its contents effectively. From the sources I viewed, I couldn't indicate any clear biases. There is no mention of bias in the article. Considering the "leaning towards neutral tone" in the article, I am led to believe that the sources the article draws upon are leaning towards neutral as well.

= Evaluating Organization =


 * Is the article well written - concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well organized - broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization Evaluation

The article's organization is well structured. The contents box accurately reflects the major points in the article and breaks the contents down in a concise, easy to read manner. I found the simplicity of the writing to be very effective. I think that someone not knowing what digital rhetoric is would come away with a better understanding of what the field after reading this article based on the organization and its content. I couldn't find any grammatical or spelling errors. I also think that the organization of hypertext may be a tad ineffective. There are many external links on simple words. Although these words relate to the field, I feel that readers can easily understand what words like "audience," "critique," and "touch" mean without having hyperlinked articles attached.

= Evaluating Images and Media =


 * 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

There are four images included in this article: a stock photo of a woman using her computer, two photos related to social media, and a photo on hypertext. I don't believe that these images enhance my understanding of the topic. While social media is related to digital rhetoric, the field encompasses so much more than that type of platform. It would've been nice to see images related to public-facing projects, linguistics, visual rhetorics, etc. I did enjoy the hypertext image though.

The images themselves are well-captioned, laid out in a visually appealing way, and follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

= Checking the talk page = Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * 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?

This article has been a part of multiple Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. The Talk page helped me envision the history of this page and the edits that have occurred on it since its origins (presumably 2012ish). Conversations included rearranging topics (from history to uses), organizing information more effectively (sub headings in the uses category such as interactivity's section), and the scope of influence (editor stating they geared the article towards social media use and invites other knowledgeable people to expand on other influences). This helped me understand the choices that were made in the article a bit better and added to my understanding of how I evaluated each section.