User talk:Cdsj0497/sandbox

Peer Review: Procederal Rhetoric
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article is neutral. However, there is heavy use of quotations from the same few sources that seem to carry the article. The new sources in the sandboxes of the members working on this article will help solve this problem. It is important to use a variety of sources instead of relying on the same few for research.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? There is a source from 1997, and other sources dating around 2008. The 1997 citation should be reviewed to make sure the content provided is still relevant. Although the early 2000s were not too long ago, it would be helpful to double check that the research provided is reliable. However, because this topic is relatively new, the sources do not date back extremely far.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The citations that I clicked on either could not be reached or just referred me back to the "Procedural rhetoric" article itself. Because of this, it is likely these sources do not provide sufficient support and need to be removed from the article.

Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The Talk page consists of one user who suggests changes to the article. This user claims that the article goes in-depth in respect to the term "procedural rhetoric." Although this is the case, this user believes that the section on "A New Rhetorical Theory" can be improved and that the overall article needs to be easily understood by novices. After this evaluation, the user provided references that could improve the article. Overall, it would be beneficial to investigate these sources and see how they could be applied to the article.

Gdeluca33 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Alvin's Peer Review
I don't think we need a detailed description of who Bogost is. Just a link to his wikipedia page is more than enough. I think taking some of the focus away from the researchers, and giving a straight definition and explanation of procedural rhetoric would work better. You don't need to show that your sources come from established sources, since on a Wikipedia page, there's an implicit understanding that the information comes from an already established figure; you don't need to convince the audience that.

Other than that, this draft looks to be a solid start to great wikipedia article. You explained the term extremely well, in a way that was both informative and easy to understand. Maybe a few sentences could be trimmed down or cut into multiple sentences to improve readability, but otherwise it looks good. BeanBean677 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)