User:Shan.duffy/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it was assigned to me through my university course on digital rhetoric.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead sentence does a good job of explaining digital rhetoric clearly, although I think the sentence may be a bit long. The lead section does not include a brief description of the major sections, and without this description, it appears that the article will be much shorter than it actually is. This section appears appropriate in length.

Content

The content dives deep into the different elements of digital rhetoric and platforms through which it is used. The content is up-to-date, as it mentions online learning as a result of the pandemic. I think some content may go too in-depth and beyond the scope of simply explaining digital rhetoric. For example, the section that explains the benefits of social media is very long and at some points gets off-topic. However, those who do read the entire article will come away with a much better understanding of digital rhetoric.

Tone and Balance

The writer remained mostly neutral in the explanation of digital rhetoric. However, I think the “scope of influence” section is very heavily focused on social media, education, and professional work, while ignoring some topics such as access and other forms of media. This makes it appear that the professional/academic perspective is overrepresented. However, this is a minor issue, and I do not see any claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. I see no attempt to sway the reader towards one particular point of view.

Sources and References

The “Professionals in the Workplace” section could use a few sources to make the claims more credible. Additionally, there are a few facts in the “politics” section that need citing. However, for the most part, there are sources from a wide variety of different perspectives cited in this article. Most sections are well-cited, it is just the more current information that lacks references at times.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is very well-written and easy to read, with only a few, very minor grammatical errors. I think at times, it could be a bit more concise, such as in the “concepts” and “scope of influence” sections. I think the article is well-organized, as the most important information is towards the top, and the middle and bottom sections help to explain digital rhetoric further.

Images and Media

The three images that are included fit in well with the information in the text. They help to demonstrate what is being explained. I think the third picture would be more beneficial if it’s caption was more descriptive. I also think more pictures could have been added to support the information in the article. There are many long sections on this page, so adding more pictures would help to split up the information and make it easier to read. The two images appear to adhere to copyright regulations.

Talk page Discussion

The talk page includes a variety of perspectives from people who have reviewed the article and suggested edits. People on this page have debated the credibility and usefulness of some sections which has since been deleted from the article. Many editors also included new sections and discussed their reasoning in the talk section. One important thing that I recognized is that some editors pointed out bias and argued for the inclusion of information from a different perspective. This article goes into more depth about digital rhetoric than we have covered in class. However, our class readings have presented digital rhetoric from a more scholarly and culturally-aware perspective.

Overall Impressions

This article gives a very in-depth overview of digital rhetoric. After reading this page, I have a better understanding of the history, context, uses, and concepts relating to digital rhetoric. The article can be improved by making some sections a bit more concise, getting rid of information that strays too far from the topic. Additionally, some paragraphs need more citations. Beyond these two edits, I think the article is very well-developed.