User:Stickygecks/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose digital rhetoric because it influences how online communities operate, and whether they're successful. Since our course revolves around online communities and crowds, I thought the digital rhetoric page was particularly important given that it covers a lot of the way information disseminates across the internet.

Evaluate the article
I thought the article thoroughly defined and elaborated on digital rhetoric and it's sub-sections. However, while I think it is a well-developed article, I think it could benefit from a few changes:


 * In the lead section, I'd remove the sections on the arguments between what constitutes rhetoric, and focus more primarily on rhetoric in the digital world. Also, when claiming that "digital rhetoric can be analyzed through many lenses that reflect different social movements," the sentence needs both a citation and a bit more of an explanation. The wording isn't very clear, but I'm assuming it's related to the digital rhetoric formed through different social movements. I'd consider moving this to the critical approaches section.
 * In the definition section, I'd elaborate on how Richard Lanhman used digital rhetoric at the time, rather than just stating the essay he quoted it in. Additionally, the sheer number of rhetoricians cited is impressive and the rhetoricians are reputable, but the section seems cluttered without a general consensus on a digital rhetoric definition. I'd suggest illustrating which rhetorician's definition is most cited/accepted and delineate it in the text, just for clarity.
 * The critical approaches sub-section could use the most work, particularly in the technofeminism section:
 * For one, the definition of intersectionality seems a bit under-developed, ignoring the central point that each identity's privileges and disadvantages intersect and interact with each other. While this doesn't need to be expanded on largely in order to stay on topic, I think a better definition would help clarify the rest of the section.
 * The name of this sub-section in itself is a bit puzzling; while the information is topical to digital rhetoric, "technofeminism" is not a widely used term, and in use, typically just refers to the book by Judy Wajcman of the same name. I'd suggest digital feminism or feminist digital rhetoric instead.
 * Additionally, mentioning "gender non-conforming and transgender folx of all races, disabled folx, and people of color" in just one line inside of the technofeminism section seems to ignore the work these underrepresented communities have done outside of just the realm of feminism, given the rest of the section focuses solely on women's experience in the digital landscape. I think the section could benefit from expanding on these communities efforts using digital rhetoric, especially given that there has been substantial movements and online presence in these communities.


 * Content-wise, the rest is alright, but could use some re-wording and streamlining in some instances.
 * For example, when mentioning visual imagery as rhetoric, the section went into a few sentences on the origins of peace signs as anti-Christian symbols. While interesting, it seemed unrelated to the topic.
 * When mentioning Beth Kolko's thoughts on a digital realm without ideas, the article has three separate sentences that repeats roughly the same information (Kolko's idealized digital realm and her thoughts on the popularity of a non-gendered digital realm). These could probably be condensed to a sentence or two, max.
 * When mentioning Trump's COVID misinformation, particularly when he pushed hydroxychloroquine, the two sentences seemed awkward. I think they could be reworded to say "Trump also endorsed hydroxchloroquine as a method to prevent COVID-19, despite the World Health Organization's warnings against doing so." Additionally, I think the paragraph this is in could benefit from focusing primarily on the digital misinformation rather than misinformation as a whole. The mention of the misinformation surrounding COVID-19 should revolve around how that misinformation was communicated using digital rhetoric.
 * For the formatting, I'd reccomend making the image size bigger since some of the images have fine text that is difficult to read. Plus, it'd help break up the text blocks a bit more.
 * As for the sources, I thought most of the article was well cited and had an array of different sources. However, I did not find the source suitable for the claim that, "the origins of modern computing can be found in the techno-military context of World War II," given the source is a 2 minute YouTube video with no citations for its claims. I recommend further research on this claim in order to find a suitable source, or just removing it entirely.

Ultimately, the article was detailed and well-organized, but some sections are under-developed and could use some further research and work.