User talk:Isabella Pham/Digital rhetoric

-I agree with you that the Lead section does what it needs to do. I don't think you need to add anything significant to it.Khamelia H. (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) -If you are unable to find any reliable sources for expanding the "Scope of influence" to add commercial branding and rhetoric, it may be best to leave it be since such a big chunk of info. already exists in "politics" subtopic. Khamelia H. (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) -You should definitely add more to history. The original article doesn't go in depth into the history of rhetoric. You could talk about rhetorical history in terms of philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato...Or you could talk about the history of rhetorical appeals (how they were used during the Roman/Greek empires).Khamelia H. (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) -I agree that the "politics" sub-section does seem a bit biased at least when it comes to length in comparison to all other sections.Khamelia H. (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

-In "possible edits" in your sandbox, are you planning on adding that to the original article? If you can expand upon "Digital rhetoric can also help strengthen a reader's connection to the text by allowing them to directly interact with and comment on it" definitely expand.Khamelia H. (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (Khamelia H. (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC))