Rhetorical Awareness

To what extent does this definition attend to its purpose and its audience's needs? For example, is
the definition written at a general readers level? Does it define more specialized terms and ideas?
Is its focus informing or educating the reader?
This extended definition was very straightforward and was broken down for the general
audience. With the utilization of parenthesis to define more complex terms or ideas, it
helps to better understand and identify the issue at hand. This definition had a little bit of
both informing and educating in it. With subheadings like History you get an
educational feel, whereas the Causes and Effects of ocean acidification subheadings
were very informal and explained in detail.
Ethical Research
To what extent does this definition consistently and correctly use quotation marks and MLA- , APA-,
or Wikipedia-style in-text (number system) and end-of-text (reference list) citations for all sources,
whether quoted directly or paraphrased? Are the definitions sources diverse (say, from journals,
videos, and newspapers)? Does it avoid relying too much on a single source?
This definition is very consistent with citing the resources in Wiki style, and made it easy to
refer back to the websites with the specific information. The diversity in references ranges
from websites to journals to newspapers. This makes the definition credible and reliable.
Support/Evidence
How well does the definition support any claims it makes with relevant, thorough, and specific
evidence? To what extent is the definition objective and unbiased?
Whenever a specific point was made in the definition, the group followed up with a Wiki style
reference from a credible source. The evidence came from sources based out of universities
and scientific journals. Although the information was one sided and negative, the definition is
not unbiased because it is dealing with an undesirable topic.
Organization
How organized is the definition? For instance, does it use clear, specific organizational devices (like
a one-sentence definition followed by a general introduction, followed again by subdivided topics;
topic sentences to organize paragraphs, logical headings, and transitions) to define the word and to
tie ideas and topics together logically and seamlessly? Are paragraphs are unified?
The definition is organized into a Wikipedia style web page, meaning that it starts with
background information then leads into more complex ideas and topics that are explained
under sub headings. The background paragraph made it helpful to understand what the rest
of the definition was going to discuss. The information is not cluttered and is broken up to
different sections, making the information easy to locate. All the evidence and
information located within the paragraphs are put together well. Whatever the heading was,
the rest of the information under dealt with that same topic.
Language
Is the language effective, concise, and varied? Does the language respect the diversity of
Wikipedias readers (e.g., not using bigoted or biased language)?
The language used in the definition was very informational and precise. Usually some Wiki
definitions can be difficult to read because of the scientific structure and language they
utilize, however this definition was straight to the point and clear cut. If the first paragraph
did not have explanations and parenthesis to define what was being said, it could have been
difficult to understand.
Design
To what extent does the definitions design conform to the design used on Wikipedia pages?
The layout of this definition conforms to a typical Wikipedia page. The use of pictures and
statistics adds to the design of the page, and makes it very presentable. The headings make
the definition seem like it was from Wikipedia itself. The captions under the pictures also
helped made it more realistic.
Collaboration
To what extent are the definitions style and substance unified? In other words, does it appear as
though one writer composed it, or like a group of people patched it together?
The definition page seemed to be broken into different parts for people to work on. For
example, some people could have worked on the reference list or the background
paragraph. I would say 3 people put a lot of time into the layout and how it would be
presented. Other than that, your unification is on top.