User:Zachary Michael Labonski/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
 * I chose to evaluate this article because my I am studying digital rhetoric and my professor suggested that we look at this page.

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
The lead includes an introductory sentence that very clearly and concisely defines the subject. The article is broken down into into a wide range of major sections, so many to the point where it would be almost impossible for the author to have touched on all of them in the introduction.

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 is very relevant to the topic and up to date. I specifically thought the evaluation of the influence of digital rhetoric on politics was a good addition and very well put together.

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
The article seems to be very neutral, and there are hardly any mentions of any real specific viewpoints. There is one important aspect that seems to have been left out, in the section regarding the history of digital rhetoric, which was the 2016 presidential election and the major role it played during that cycle.


 * 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
All of the facts seem be backed up by a reliable second source of information. There are hyperlinks included throughout the page from any word that might need further explanation. The sources are all relatively current and the links work properly.

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 is very well organized. I did not notice any grammatical errors and I thought the article flowed well overall. While there are a variety of large sections, they are placed in an order that makes sense. They are broken down first into the history of digital rhetoric, then there are sections for the range of concepts, followed finally by controversies. This format and order really contributes to the flow of the article, and seems like the best layout for this subject.

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
The article doesn't include very many images or media, except one. This image is just a woman on a computer in a classroom, with the caption "Student using technology in the classroom" which despite being basic, is pretty appropriate for the subject. The image is properly cited and a link to the license can be found by clicking on the image. The image is at the top right hand part of the page, which is typical of many wikipedia pages. There could definitely be more use of imagery but overall it does not inhibit the article as a whole.

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
One major conversation that is being had behind the scenes of this article is definitely related to the controversies section of this page. There are plenty of discussions to be had regarding issues like copyrighting, cyberbullying and open access, all of which are briefly described in the article.

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
Overall, the article is very well put together and polished. It is formatted properly and only truly lacks the incorporation of more images to make it more aesthetically pleasing. This article seems very neutral and does not seem to leave out any information on purpose. As the topic of digital rhetoric begins to grow, it would seem that this page will be edited to create an even greater view of what the topic represents. In this vein, the article is already in a very good position for this to happen, as new information as it comes out can be placed in a section very easily.

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: