User:98hmarie/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Digital rhetoric
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I chose to evaluate this article because the professor suggested it and the content directly relates to the main themes of our course.
Lead
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation:
[edit]The lead includes a clear opening sentence that provides the basis of the article's topic. The sentence order provides a brief overview of the article's major sections and is careful not to include information that isn't discussed in the rest of the article. I think the lead is an appropriate length and contains enough details to make the reader aware of the substance of the article without giving all the information away at first glance.
Content
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is definitely relevant to the topic, especially the section discussing the transition from traditional rhetoric to digital rhetoric and the importance of the new interactive component. The content is very inclusive in its range of research, and the most recent source is from 2018, indicating the relevancy of the topic. Based on my current knowledge of digital rhetoric, I think the authors did a great job of including content that touches every aspect of the topic. There wasn't any information that stood out as being out of place in the article, though the list of concepts could be difficult to put into conversation with the rest of the text if readers don't do the work to make connections on their own.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- Guiding questions
- Is the article neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The authors maintain a neutral tone throughout their collaborative writing and provide ample resources to back up their information. I think viewpoints are mostly represented evenly, but in the education section there is only one perspective showcased, though this could be because there are no scholars who oppose teaching digital rhetoric in the classroom. It might be beneficial to address this particular issue so readers aren't left wondering. Overall, the information is straightforward and is not trying to persuade readers to feel a certain way about digital rhetoric. It is only serving as a way for interested individuals to get more facts about the topic.
Sources and References
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]One thing I noticed with the sources was in the concepts section where the authors used a long block quote for the definition of "memory." While it is understandable that the contributor may have felt the cited author did a better job at defining the term, it would be more beneficial for readers if the definitions were all in simpler terms. It is critical to find the balance between borrowing a definition from a source and writing one in your own words. Overall, the sources ranged in dates from the 1990s to 2018, so the authors did a good job at balancing the research from the past and the present. I think the sources were thorough and the fact that there were 71 indicates the variety of perspectives the authors tried to take into account in writing the article. The links provided throughout the article opened successfully.
Organization
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The authors made good use of headings and subheadings to organize the article into an easily navigable source. It is clear what the definitions of terms mean and the writing flowed well so it wasn't clear if another author contributed to a specific section. There weren't grammatical or spelling errors that stood out during my reading.
Images and Media
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The authors could do a way better job at incorporating relevant images into this article. There is only one image that shows a girl on a computer, which doesn't really tell readers much about digital rhetoric other than some communication is done on a laptop, and this could actually be misleading of the action definition. The caption was also very generic and didn't link to a specific concept mentioned in the article. The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because it was a photograph taken by the creator of the page.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Talk page evaluation
[edit]The talk page for the digital rhetoric article was filled with suggestions for improving the page. Contributors were suggesting specific content revisions for the history of rhetoric to make the section more inclusive, and there was even a small debate about the name of the title that ultimately resulted in the title that exists today. One interesting thread I found was about the politics section of the article, specifically about the information regarding how specific presidential candidates in the most recent election used digital rhetoric. One contributor opted to remove the information because it didn't add anything to the article, which I actually agreed with. Now the section has mostly generic information that doesn't bring in current politics or indicate political viewpoints of contributors. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic in the talk page differs from the way the class has talked about the topic in that the contributors are offering specific suggestions for how to make the topic of digital rhetoric expand across more real world factors whereas our class discussion so far has mostly talked about how digital rhetoric is different from technology and what that means in current scholarship. This article is also a part of four WikiProjects.
Overall impressions
[edit]- Guiding questions
- 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?
Overall evaluation
[edit]This article is well-developed and includes a range of information from various years of research to provide the full picture of the topic of digital rhetoric. It does a good job at focusing in on various subsections of the topic without providing opinions or critiques of the current conversations taking place. It could be improved by looking at more scholarship on how the topic relates to different social groups, but it would have to include both positions in order to avoid bias information. After reading the article, I feel I have a better understanding of the topic, but would like to know more about the current conversations scholars in the field are having.
Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: