User:Wiki811pedia/subpage

User:Wiki811pedia/subpage

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.

I have chosen to evaluate this article to enhance my understanding on the topic and identify any knowledge gaps that exist.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions
 * User


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence provides a good/simple, overarching definition of digital rhetoric
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it doesn't touch on most of the major subheadings listed in the article or their content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it has a biased sentence about the power of digital rhetoric.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overall it's concise but there is a sentence in the last paragraph that is overly detailed and seems opinionated.

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Most of the sources are relatively recent but more recent sources would be helpful since this is such a contemporary topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The section on technofeminism is much shorter than other sections under "Concepts" and thus could be elaborated upon. Everything else seems relevant to the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, I would say that digital rhetoric is a topic more relevant to privileged groups who can utilize the internet and experience rhetoric in these spaces. Therefore, the topic should touch more on inaccessibility such as is present in the Technofeminism section.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article is generally neutral but there are several slanted/opinionated segments.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, the sentence in the lead section about technology being in every aspect of our daily lives-this is not the case for many people around the world.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe the section about social media should be better represented since that has become such a key component of digital rhetoric and is very applicable to many people.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, some citations are missing. For example, more frequent citations should be present in the Politics section and the Circulation section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some of the sources seem outdated- this is an ever-changing topic so the sources from late 2000's-early 2010's could be updated with more recent information.
 * Are the sources current? Most of them, but some could use updated replacements.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  It doesn't seem like there is much diversity in the spectrum of authors as it's a lot of university scholars. There isn't much information from minorities or other perspectives that could fit into the description of a "good" source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article overall is well written and easy to follow. Some of the sections could be shortened for clarity purposes and there are small grammatical errors throughout.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few minor issues such as adding commas, etc. but I haven't noticed anything major.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The first image of the student using an online learning tool on the computer does not relate directly to, or enhance, the topic of digital rhetoric in my opinion.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the other two images have relevant and helpful captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It appears so, although the image with the caption "Image depicting prose with Hypertext" does not have the permission details listed.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * issues related to need for citations, removal of information without citations, etc.
 * need for different sections to have more information or entirely new sections to be created (ex: technofeminism last year)
 * calls to remove irrelevant, excessive information and supply a more global approach
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * rated as a Start-class article
 * part of 5 WikiProjects (Media, Philosophy, Linguistics/Applied Linguistics, Computing, and Writing) > start-class for all, only high importance for Writing
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * a lot more historical background than what we have delved into
 * touches on deeper topics such as accessibility and cyberbullying
 * provides more perspectives than just the readings we have discussed

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start-class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * a lot of information about history and covers various important topics that relate to digital rhetoric
 * How can the article be improved?
 * condense areas that have excessive bits of information (ex: maybe the circulation section)
 * add more updated content and more content regarding issues of accessibility and technofeminism
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * well developed but could still use a lot of editing

Optional activity[edit]

 * 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 — ~