User:Marsolf/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Visual rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I've chosen this article because I'm interested in multimodal communication/composition for educational purposes. I also have a BS in Social Communication with a concentration in Advertising, which makes me an enthusiastic for studying and researching visual literacy as ways for a)aiding comprehension, b)enhacing understading, c)calling attention, d)being inclusive as a more "universal" literacy than language in print alone,e)adding more appeal to alphabetical texts.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: this section is concise, presents major sections but it lacks more examples and clarity when it comes to the definition of the term Visual Rhetoric. For example, the following definition, found later in the article, could appear in the lead section to provide a clearer definition for the topic: “in order for artifacts or products to be conceptualized as visual rhetoric, they must be symbolic, involve human intervention, and be presented to an audience for the purpose of communicating”, followed by some examples.

Content: The Graffiti section address this kind of visual rhetoric that represents marginalized populations.

Tone and balance: Neutral point of view throughout.

Sources and References: I believe there are stronger sources available, especially for the Lead section when the topic is introduced. Most of the information in the introductory section is linked to the Purdue website. Reference 10, which is the book “Defining Visual Rhetoric” should be relied on more heavily in both lead and history and origin sections, to provide the reader a more reliable source to conceptualize the term Visual Rhetoric and facilitate understanding for the rest of the article. Most of the links work.

Images and Media: For an article that talks about visuals I found it is currently very poorly incremented with images. It could use more straight-forward examples that are explained in the text to illustrate some points, such as in the Semiotics section. I guess the traffic light sign may be a universal example but the STOP sign would narrow the meaning to US contexts. Images should be more universal and more appealing. For example, a more quality traffic light picture is in order. The one used is not very appealing, does not reflect a real-life traffic light and seems like a paintbrush drawing (the green light is just the circumference!).

Overall Impressions: I have some suggestions on how this article can be improved. It feels to me that it is not very complete. For example, “Visual rhetoric mainly involves the use of images.” This sentence could be further elaborated, especially if linked to a reliable source. Some repetition could be used for readability and some paragraphs could be more developed, for example, “The term emerged largely as an effort to set aside a certain area of study that would focus attention on specific rhetorical elements of visual mediums.” I did not understand the point of this sentence. It lacks a follow-up sentence.

“The study of visual symbols from a rhetorical perspective also has grown with the emerging recognition that such symbols provide access to a range of human experience not always available through the study of discourse.” I guess that terms like multimodality and/or multiliteracies could have a space in the subsections or within the article because both help conceptualize the definition.

The following sentence could be worded better, especially to support the claim for representing marginalized groups and going beyond Greeco-Roman standards and viewpoints: “Originating in ancient Greece, rhetoric has been widely discussed for thousands of years”. According to our recent class readings and discussion on Enheduanna, we’ve come to know that the concept of rhetoric may have originated before the Greeks. Bringing this into question may support our claim of valuing marginalized authors and expanding the views to non-euro-centric populations and authors, for example, the goddess and princess of Eastern lands. Maybe the term rhetoric was originated in Greece but not rhetorical movements. This part here should include other rhetoricians beyond Greeks.

Comments from Dr. Vetter

Hello @Marsolf: and thanks you for your work on this evaluation. I think you've done a nice job presenting a nuanced task on the article, i.e. one that is both critical of where the article can be improved and aware of its strengths.

You have listed at least 3 sentences/passages where the article could be improve. I agree with you on all three of these cases. I would also encourage you to look for new content/sections to add by reading and researching about visual rhetorics in other secondary sources. If you check out the talk page, there are 2-3 other editors who have listed sources that might be useful in adding to they article.

Finally, I think we can do some re-organization of the article. For instance, why is "Graffiti" subsection in the same section as "How to Rhetorically Analyze an Image" - I'm actually wondering if that latter section should even be included.

Good work overall! Dr. Vetter (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)