User:Sydneyh1472/Digital Rhetoric Eval

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: Digital rhetoric

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes 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? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''Lead Evaluation: The article includes a strong introductory sentence with a brief description of what digital rhetoric is. The lead is somewhat broad as it does not identify the different forms of discourse that digital rhetoric covers. There is a section in the lead that goes slightly off topic as it starts to focus on more ancient uses for rhetoric, and there is one citation missing. Grade - B'''

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

'''Content Evaluation: The content of the article is related to the topic and up to date. The content covers everything from what digital rhetoric is, what forms of communication can be taken, the history behind digital rhetoric, and how digital rhetoric is affected by outside influences. The content also addresses issues related to marginalized groups. One issue is the section on politics is a lot longer than the rest of the sections. Grade - A'''

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

'''Tone & Balance Evaluation: There does not seem to be any bias in the article. The article lists different positions and beliefs about digital rhetoric without saying one way of thinking is superior to another. Grade - A'''

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

'''Sources & References Evaluation: After looking through the citations, it seems that most of the sources are from peer-reviewed scholarly articles that are accessible. There are some areas where the flag "citation needed" is shown and i'm sure there are other areas that need citations that were missed. Grade B+'''

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * 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 & Writing Quality Evaluation: No grammatical errors and well organized. It is easy to decipher each section and find the information needed. Grade - A'''

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 & Media Evaluation: There are many words that are linked to extra definitions or graphs. The article's images are captioned and seem to relate to each subsection although they are not always needed to enhance understanding of the topic. The images are all to the right of the screen and are not laid out in a visually appealing way (especially for a digital rhetoric article). Grade - B-'''

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * 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 Discussion Evaluation: The talk page has interactive participants in recent years. It rates this article at a B, probably because of lot of editing is done by students who may not be well versed in digital rhetoric.'''

Overall impressions

 * 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: I give this article a B. It included information from peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The sections are clearly labeled and relate back to the main topic. The talk section is long and has been used this year which suggests that a lot of people have edited the article, and the article is up to date. The article can be improved with better image/media placement and shortening the section on politics. I also think more time can be spent on the controversial talking points such as technofeminism and access to technology.'''