User:TechnoFem&DigitalRhet/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Digital rhetoric article.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate the Digital Rhetoric article as it is relevant to the material I am learning at my University. Digital rhetoric is an incredibly important topic, as it can facilitate both equality and inequality based on how it is used. As such, it is important that the world is informed of what digital rhetoric is, and how it is situated in different contexts and cultures.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead section began by giving a very general definition/description of digital rhetoric-- which is beneficial for readers who may not know much about the topic. However, the lead section foreshadowed the rest of the article vaguely, and did not provide a very sturdy scaffold for upcoming content. There were several specific details that could have been referenced later on in the article-- these pieces of information could have been replaced with more general ideas.

Content: The article's content is relevant to the topic, and seems to be evolving as technology is evolving. There seemed to be more content on older definitions and impacts of digital rhetoric, with less concrete emphasis on evolving facets. I personally think all of the content in the article helped the audience gain a more holistic understanding of digital rhetoric. The article does tackle equity gaps for women, people of color, people with disabilities, etc.

Tone and Balance: The article seemed to be very neutral, and I didn't pick up on any blatant biases. However, I do think that some of the information published could be viewed by some as partisan. For example, when it is pointed out that digital rhetoric has frequently been analyzed through a white, male perspective, some may view this as 'agenda-pushing.' There may need to be additional sources added to further explain these ideas so they come across as completely neutral by everyone.

Sources and References: All facts presented in the article seemed to have citations attached to them. These sources come from a wide range of dates, the most recent ones seeming to come from 2021. From what I was able to look into, the sources seem to come from a diverse set of contributors from reliable, peer-reviewed mediums.

Organization and writing quality: The article was easy to read, and while there were some minor grammatical errors, the article looked polished overall. I felt that the sections were well organized. I did think it was odd that the history section was not at the top, but perhaps the article was organized in a way to put the 'more interesting' content at the top.

Images and Media: The article did not include many images-- and the ones that were included did not enhance my understanding of the topic. While they were well captioned, the images were all quite small and seemed to be placed for the sole purpose of being placed. They were not put in a visually appealing format, and could have been more relevant to the topic of digital rhetoric.

Talk page discussion: Digital rhetoric is categorized as a B-Class (low importance) topic. While it is a part of several varying WikiProjects, it does not seem to hold a high importance. Many conversations on the talk page discuss edits in organization and formatting-- whether it be the addition of a section, or the recategorization of information, or something else entirely. The Wikipedia article does not focus as much on the technofeminist side of digital rhetoric-- but it does provide a generalized, holistic perspective on the topic than the one we have learned in class.

Overall impressions: Overall, the article does not seem to have any special status. The article was very informative, but there were some areas that could have been expounded upon-- such as the Forms & Objects of study section. If I had to rank the articles completeness on a scale of 1-10, I would give it maybe a 7. While the article is well-developed, there is definitely a lot more information that can be added to make it more complete.