User:Visook/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.


 * Name of article: Digital Rhetoric
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * It highlights an important concept in the field of rhetoric and relates to course material.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
An introductory sentence is provided with the definition of digital rhetoric and its influence across platforms. The Lead does include brief mentions of the article's sections (mentions rhetoric's relation to digital rhetoric, shift in rhetoric, and the different meanings highlighted as a list of concepts in the table of contents). There doesn't seem to be information included here that isn't present in the article. Some Lead information could be more concise. For example, the detail and wording of the second sentence is a little confusing.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The content included draws back to the concept of digital rhetoric and doesn't stray away from it. The sources seem to range mostly from 2009-2018 which helps keep it relatively up-to-date. There doesn't seem to be content that doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
I believe the article does a relatively good job of remaining neutral. I didn't run into any instances where there was biased language like "this is important" or "this is best," which would affect reader opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
For the most part, the article seems to do a fair job at backing up its claims with secondary sources. However, there was one source I came upon (source 27 for the five canons of rhetoric) that didn't seem like it could be considered reliable. The links I had a chance to check worked, and they seemed thorough.

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?

Organization evaluation
The article does appear to be well-written. There was one sentence in the Lead (second sentence) that threw me off a bit, but as I progressed through the article, I found it was pretty clear. From what I saw, I didn't catch any grammatical or spelling errors. The categories and general breakdown of the article also seems fair to me.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 and media evaluation
There is only one image present in the article, and although it has a caption, I don't find that it enhances any understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 evaluation
Behind the scenes, some editors have discussed tactics used/employed like to remove unnecessary information, condense existing content, and adding to definitions. The article is of interest to four WikiProjects. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from our class discussions because it embraces several concepts and controversies that we haven't touched on in as much depth. I'm not sure how many of these concepts/controversies will arise in our class discussions (or if they necessarily need to), but it's interesting to see the large scope Wikipedia covers in inviting discussion about digital rhetoric.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The article is strengthened by its wide scope of content and sources that expand on digital rhetoric's reach. While I think the Lead is relatively concise, the rest of the article could benefit from editors combing over the information to check for wordiness or unnecessary tangents. Overall, I think the article is well-developed and has benefited from the content editors have added and reworked.

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: