User talk:GK2000GK/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Digital Rhetoric

Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

'''I noticed that there are a few areas in the lead section that sound slightly opinionated in my opinion. For instance, the phrase "Due to the increasingly mediated nature of our contemporary society," sounds odd, especially considering this is not supported through fact or citation. Aside from this, however, I think the lead section opens with a concise and informative sentence that gets the entire point of the article across quite well. The lead section also includes an introduction to UCLA scholar Arthur Smith and a brief discussion of African Rhetoric, which I am not entirely sure needs to be mentioned in the lead. It may be better suited to remove this information and have it appear later in the article.'''

Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

'''This article has very informative content that helped me to expand upon my understanding of digital rhetoric. I like how in-depth the analysis is and how it includes discussions of various topics in digital rhetoric like video games, etc. Judging by the many citations, many of them seem to be up-to-date, though there are a few that are over 15 years old.'''

Tone and Balance Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

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

'''For most of what I read, the article certainly maintained a neutral stance. Specifically looking at the 'Politics' section, I think the article does a nice job of laying out the various theoretical research approaches and ideologies without imposing an opinion.'''

Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work?

'''I was surprised by how up-to-date most of the sources were, with many having been published from 1 to 5 years prior. I found the particular sources in this article to be extremely helpful and I was happy to see that the article had over 100 citations to support the information in the actual text.'''

Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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? Images and Media 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?

'''I found many of the images very interesting and nicely placed throughout the article. However, I found it hard to read the attached photos in the 'Politics' and 'Rhetoric to Digital Rhetoric' sections. I also found that some photos did not add any new information to the piece, aside from maybe adding to the article's visual aesthetic (for instance, adding a photo with Wikipedia's logo in the 'Circulation' section). Otherwise, the images were all safe to use and were well-captioned.'''

Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

'''The article was rated a B class. This might be the largest Talk page that I have interacted with thus far (which I am assuming is because the article seemed to be assigned to many other Wiki-centered courses). Nonetheless, I saw a lot of good discussions and even a few citation suggestions with publishing dates as recent as 2022. In class, I know we discuss Wikipedia quite formally however, I have found throughout my time editing on Wikipedia that a lot of the user/ editor interactions are more casual.'''

Overall impressions 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?

'''I think this article had a wealth of information and was helpful to me as a scholar of Rhetoric in understanding our course. Nonetheless, the article is not perfect and can certainly benefit from a few minor changes. Aside from small grammatical fixes, perhaps the images used can be adjusted to add something new to the article instead of showing photos of old books, which to me, is not entirely necessary. Further, I think the lead section may be able to be cut down to make it a little more concise and straightforward. Otherwise, this was a relatively strong article that I enjoyed reading!'''

GK2000GK (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)