User:Xiphias22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article relates directly to my course on Digital Rhetoric with an emphasis on Technofeminism and I was assigned to evaluate this page.

Lead section:
The lead section is effective as it presents the topic in a short and concise fashion while also setting the framework for the article's sections below.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead section is concise and stays away from being overly wordy.

Content:
I felt the article was very informative in the sense that it took an in depth dive on the concept of digital rhetoric, its origins, modern uses, and its applications in different fields.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Tone and Balance:
The tone remained neutral and informative without taking any overly political, economic, or social sides.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References:
There were a plethora of sources provided for this article, so many so that I couldn't check every single one. That said, out of the ones I did check they seemed to be scholarly and reliable.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality:
The quality of writing and organization stayed consistently professional throughout the article.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, however the amount of information makes it slightly difficult to get through.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media:

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Talk page discussion:

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Primarily talks over small changes proposed for the article in order to make the information appear professional and easy to consume.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I searched WikiProjects and did not find the article there
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article is much less personalized in comparison with our discussions, but that's only natural.

Overall impressions:

 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? Amount of Information, Amount of Sources, Professional tone
 * How can the article be improved? I felt the article could benefit from better visuals as those included feel detached from the article due to their placement and relation to the information. Otherwise I felt the article was effective
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? I consider the article very close to completion and very well developed.