User talk:Umdtourguide/sandbox

Visual Rhetoric Article: Missing Components

 * 1) The entire "history" section is unclear. There are no concrete dates, facts, or pieces of evidence listed anywhere in that paragraph. Instead, this writing does do a good job analyzing the context of visual rhetoric's significance and importance in relation to rhetorical theory. Missing specific dates and significance
 * 2) The article lacks any reference to visual rhetoric's importance and application in the dual fields of advertising and marketing. This is imperative to mention and include in the "lead" section and throughout the article's body.
 * 3) The article has no organization and needs categorization and grouping of certain sections (relevant applications: Graffiti, Advertising, etc.). It should be clear when the article focuses on visual rhetoric objectively as a topic in itself versus how it aligns with and is categorized along with other relevant rhetorical techniques and theories.
 * 4) The "art history" section has no context nor does it add value to the article. I would remove it.
 * 5) The "science" section explains Visual Rhetoric's application to science very quickly and briefly before using a single example (Miracle of Life) to explain the point. This is weak and adds little value to educating people on the topic as a whole.
 * 6) The "classical rhetoric" adds little value or direct connection to the article. As an editor, it's important to make sure the connection between the section and the topic to be more direct instead of a "throw away" sentence at the end.