User talk:TechEquity/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?[edit] Digital rhetoric Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit] It is an assignment for an English rhetoric course. Evaluation of the article[edit] Lead Section[edit] The introduction begins with the definition of digital rhetoric that focuses on the platforms and outcomes related to digital rhetoric. It would benefit from a more general focus on rhetoric. The second sentence should be re-worded, as it is unclear what the "increasingly mediated nature of our contemporary society" refers to. What is being mediated? How does this blur the line between digital and non-digital platforms? At the end of the leading paragraph, there is an attempt to describe the evolution of digital rhetoric, but Arthur Smith's example is out of place. The lead does not concisely describe the article and should be reorganized to give a more comprehensive description of what digital rhetoric is yond just persuasion on digital platforms. The lead does not summarize all the major sections but does discuss related material in a slightly less organized manner. The lead is a bit verbose. The framework of (1) introducing digital rhetoric, (2) explaining the expansion of digital platforms, (3) explaining the expansions of the definitions and lenses of analysis is robust. It would benefit from tightening up the vocabulary and possibly removing the Smith reference. Content[edit] The overall organization of the content is quite effective. Progressing from what entails digital media to the history of rhetoric and digital rhetoric set a solid foundation. Following these with the approaches (or lenses) to understand digital rhetoric is a smooth transition. The three critical approaches (procedural rhetoric, technofeminism, and digital cultural rhetoric) are equal in structured similarly content. The cited studies span between 1971 and 2021. Most citations are relatively up to date, but they are primarily in the 2005 to 2015 range, so citations could be updated to be more recent. Several of the images could be updated to be more substantial and integrated into the subject of digital rhetoric. The photo of a woman using a computer or the minute poster of prose does not support the text well. The organization and balance of structures are strong. The one section that could be broken up or cut down is the Politics section, as it is disproportionately larger than many of the other sections. Tone and Balance[edit] The tone is impartial, and the information is neutral and supported by primarily reliable sources. A few sections, such as the second paragraph of the Access section, seem a bit biased and strongly worded. For the most part, it is a fair representation of the content and does not seem to be persuading people to act on what they have learned on digital rhetoric in a certain manner. Sources and References[edit] The in-text citations are fairly numerous, and the links appear to work. The section dedicated to the shift from print to digital has a solid array of citations, but the interactivity section would benefit from additional citations. Sources span 1971 to 2020, with the majority falling in the last ten years. This is acceptable for rhetoric analyses because major paradigms in the field have not shifted in this period. It would be helpful, however, to incorporate some newer citations. Organization and Writing Quality[edit] There is inconsistency in the capitalization and outline of the articles. It is unclear which sections should be main headers and which should be head titles. Moreover, capitalization throughout the piece and especially in the titles should be refined. Finally, some sentences are unnecessarily verbose. Images and Media[edit] The article images are relevant, but they do not provide much insight beyond face value. Moreover, the image of a woman attending online school in the first section does not seem informative for the entire topic of digital rhetoric. Images that are not the conventional clip images for day-to-day activities might better reflect the nuances of digital rhetoric. Talk Page[edit] The talk page maintains relevant discussions of the article's content and structure. It is clear that the reviewers are knowledgeable in rhetoric, and there has been a recent surge in the attention paid to this page. Overall Impressions[edit] The article is a reasonably detailed description of digital rhetoric. With some reorganization of the article sections and sentence refinement, the article will be a comprehensive and clear description of the topic.