User:Undercommonsatrix/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Rhetoric page, specifically expanding more on female rhetoricians, like Enheduanna (who only has a half-sentence to her name) and perhaps Krista Ratcliffe (who has a paragraph but it looks kind of unpolished). I would love -- LOVE -- to do massive rewriting to decenter Ancient Greece, but alas for this project I think I will focus on building up the women rhetoricians first

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, though I have some qualms with its centering in Greek-only
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I don't think so
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise (perhaps omitting a bit too much in terms of the diversity of the history of rhetoric)

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes, but it's SO overwhelmingly Greek-centric. I need to look at the talk page
 * Is the content up-to-date? I'm not sure -- I think this class will help me find out
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Missing content -- yes, more on Enheduanna and women rhetoricians

==== Content evaluation: Content is overly skewed to Ancient Greece. I think bringing "balance" would rock too many boats, so will just strive to expand the sections on female rhetoricians before and after Ancient Greece. Also -- why is French its own section?? But "China" is just plopped into "History" as if there is no contemporary Chinese rhetoric? ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It suggests an inflated role of Ancient Greece
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Ancient Greece is overrepresented, and other cultures' rhetorics are relegated to little paragraphs
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't think it's trying to persuade, but just visually it makes rhetoric seems like it's 90% Ancient Greece and 10% everyone else, which I don't think is a fair assessment.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I didn't read through all that thoroughly, but it looks to be relatively well sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? a lot in beginning are from 90s, gets more contemporary as goes, but mostly stops around 2010. I have a feeling the "modern" section could be updated
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Again, the French section confuses me, as that Chinese and Indian are in the history section (as opposed to French) -- like they don't have current rhetorics but France does?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? not many and they're all Euro-centric
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? -- Qs of Krista Ratcliffe notability and need to rewrite her para -- this is something I could do (I think she's notable ftw). Also 99% of the talk page is pre-2010 which explains the lack of current sources. Jeez.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? B-class, mid-importance for applied linguistics & high importance for writing
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It's very Ancient Greek-centric and like a static thing of the past as if it's not used today. I'm surprised there's not a section on rhetoric & pedagogy/teaching etc. because I think of teaching the rhetorical triangle, rhetorical ecologies, P-CHAT, etc. which are all (some more than others) current models of explaining rhetoric to students. I'm not sure if that has a place on this wiki page, but that's another thought

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? unclear citation style as of January 2020, otherwise seems fine
 * What are the article's strengths? very comprehensive on Ancient Greeks
 * How can the article be improved? more on anything other than Ancient Greeks
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I'm sure it thinks it's complete, but I disagree

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback:

Comments from Dr. V
Really nice job on this evaluation activity! I totally understand the impulse to completely revise/restructure the page, but as you have also mentioned, it's probably best to focus on one section at a time. I really like your idea of adding Enheduanna to notable rhetoricians list and expanding the description of Krista Ratcliffe. As we go through the course, you might also encounter other women rhetoricians you would like to add (or expand descriptions of current ones). We should look at the way France/China/India are represented. I appreciated your question about this. It is probably due to the fact the no one has added any current rhetoric related to China/India but they have added the historical sections. Anyway, thanks for your comprehensive evaluation of this. Dr. Vetter (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)