User:Wordnerd104/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Rhetoric

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(I chose it because that is one of the central concepts in College Writing & Research Writing.)

Evaluate the article

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? --> Yes.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? --> It discusses several core concepts, but I don't see a clear overview of the article's contents. For example, twentieth century rhetoric is included in the article, but isn't mentioned in the lead section.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) --> Not that I could see.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? --> I noticed several hyperlinks to related articles, which a general audience would need to read to understand the concept more--but that's about it.

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? --> Yes.
• Is the content up-to-date? --> Much of the information is historical, so the sources are older. However, in terms of "modern" rhetoric, the newest reference I found was from 2020. That is still relatively current, but I wonder if there are developments in the field (like AI use of rhetoric) that could build on the "modern" rhetoric section (or even the "automatic detection of rhetorical figures" bit in reference to NLP [natural language processing]).
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? --> I wonder if "rhetorical analysis" could be a separate article because "rhetoric" seems to take on a lot of application rather than sticking to conceptual/theoretical framework for how we characterize "rhetoric." I couldn't find a section on 19th century rhetoric, even though there are sections that discuss previous centuries of work. There is not much, as I stated before, about rhetoric in the twenty-first century. I also think "rhetorical figures" could be linked and discussed in a shorter article.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? --> Somewhat. It could do more to emphasize the role of rhetoric in oppressed communities; cultural rhetoric is mentioned, but not in a way that highlights the tension/exigence of communication for oppressed or "othered" people.

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? --> Mostly.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? --> I noticed a little bias at the beginning of the fifth paragraph ("Aristotle redeemed his teacher...") and some claims regarding "well-known" scholarly that use terms like "Arguably one of the most influential..."
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? --> I'm not sure the "rhetors" and other "philosophers"/"theorists" listed here reflect diversity in terms of race/gender. I was thinking about this textbook I read in graduate school, which has greater variation in the "voices" highlighted in the ongoing "discourse" about rhetoric: https://www.textbooks.com/Rhetorical-Tradition-Readings-from-Classical-Times-to-the-Present-2nd-Edition/9780312148393/Patricia-Bizzell.php It turns out that this book is Referenced/cited, but only a small part is taken from it.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? --> Not that I noticed.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? --> The idea that "rhetoric cannot be viewed only in academic terms" is true, but I didn't see a citation when one is needed. This information leads me to conclude it might be persuasive in this aspect. The "observation on analytic method" section also seem to be based only in personal opinion, since nothing is cited. The claims there are persuasive in that they promote a particular viewpoint on how and when rhetorical analysis could or should be applied.

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? --> No (see content in "Tone and Balance).
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? --> Somewhat (see responses in "Content").
• Are the sources current? --> see earlier response in "Tone and Balance"
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? --> see earlier response in "Tone and Balance."
• 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.) --> I didn't see any "popular" sources here. Most are in peer-reviewed journals/books/publications.
• Check a few links. Do they work? --> Yes.

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? --> Yes, although the conceptual information is a bit dense (see "Lead section").
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? --> This article is long, so the only minor things I noticed were placement and uses of punctuation marks like quotation marks and commas. I thought I saw an incomplete sentence somewhere, but I couldn't find it again after I began working on this section.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? --> Somewhat. I get that it is a difficult concept to map/define the scope of, but perhaps some information that's repeated across sections could be consolidated/"grouped" differently (since several philosophers, like Aristotle, get mentioned multiple times).

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? --> Somewhat--they are mostly artistic/biographical images: paintings, portraits, bust figures, etc. to depict notable people/events in earlier times. I wonder if there could have been infographics added here to enhance understanding of rhetorical canons, appeals, and similar concepts.
• Are images well-captioned? --> The phrasing is efficient and accurate.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? --> Yes. They are all in the public domain.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? --> Yes--they are consistently aligned to the right side of article text sections.

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? --> The discourse surrounding the article is substantial. Some of the topics of conversation include who meets notability standards, modern rhetorical theory, historical definitions/uses of the term in public speech/oratory contexts, who/what should be included in the general overview, clarifying phrasing related to "language," applied social psychology, arguments about how rhetoric is characterized, incorrect links/references, inclusion of Eastern rhetoric, and so on.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? --> The article has a B-class rating. It is also of interest to WikiProject pages on philosophy, linguistics, literature, and writing.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? --> Research Writing offers an introduction to rhetoric and concepts laid out in the article itself. The "Talk" page resembles the kind of discussion we would have in a graduate seminar on the topic. Because everyone had a solid understanding of foundational concepts/people and how they are represented, we could think more critically about how they should be represented (and what's "left out"/unbalanced).

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status? --> It is of "level-4 vital article" status, which signals its importance in "[s]ociety."
• What are the article's strengths? --> This article is already a solid piece of reference material for those who are trying to "view" as much of the "historical"/sociopolitical "landscape" of rhetoric as possible. It would also be useful for students who are seeking definitions and explanations of concepts for various purposes (critical reading/writing/analysis/persuasion).
• How can the article be improved? --> Weaknesses and areas for improvement are indicated in various sections. If I were to write a complete peer review, I would combine the comments together into a shorter paragraph at this point in the evaluation.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? --> It's fairly well-developed aside from what I've already mentioned.