User talk:ImaniM489j/sandbox

Minor Readability Stuff
These are just a few recommendations to keep the text flowing well. Most of them are probably subjective, so feel free to ignore any suggestions you think are nonsense.

"Society's growing interest in the visual nature of rhetoric has lead [sic] to. . ."--> change "lead" to "led" --DubiousJosh (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"fields like journalism have experienced the higher demand for visual components and, therefore, has [sic] experimented. . ." --DubiousJosh (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

General Comments
Okay, so I am going to make my comments under the assumption that this will be going on the Visual rhetoric and composition page rather than the Visual rhetoric page. If that assumption is wrong please correct me. --DubiousJosh (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The authorial voice in the whole article seems a bit too heavy to me. In other words I think you make a lot of claims which seem like they are yours rather than a secondary source's. They might not be, I was only able to skim your references so maybe I just missed something, but I would at least recommend a little rephrasing. --DubiousJosh (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your citation for The Handbook of Rhetoric and Public Access should probably be formatted a little differently. You have the DOI, which is good (I could find the book), but clicking the first link brings me to the UMCP CAS page which is bad. At the very least I think the title should probably be indicated, as well as the specific page numbers you used. (You also appear to have it listed twice in your references) --DubiousJosh (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall, I think there's a lot of good content here. The original page is very anemic, so I'm sure your additions will be great for it. I would, however, recommend editing some things to make sure you're only giving the facts as indicated in secondary sources. -DubiousJosh (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Original Research
I'm dropping in a bunch of "citation needed"s. It's entirely possible that some of these will be wrong/unnecessary and others may refer to situations that simply require rephrasing, however based on what I'm currently seeing there does appear to be a lot of original research. Bear in mind I don't have the complete picture, though. --DubiousJosh (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)