What is the rhetorical artifact analyzed in the article? In other words, what “thing” did the author analyze in the paper?
(2) Can you identify a point in which the author joins an intellectual conversation (usually located at the beginning of the paper)? This is how we do a literature review in rhetoric. So, with which authors is the author of the article you chose talking to?
(3) How many pages did the author take to reveal the argument of the paper?
(4) What is the argument?
(5) How does the author articulate that the paper is significant (or important, or worthy of rhetorical analysis)?
(6) What subheadings can you identify throughout the paper?
(7) Why are these subheadings important?
(8) Are the subheadings consistent with what the author proposed in the introduction?
(9) What is the content of the conclusion? (Here I don’t want you to copy and paste, obviously. Think analytically: Is there a review of the main points of the paper? Are there warnings or suggestions for future projects?)
(10) Is there any point in which the author states how they feel about the artifact or give their opinion? Is that the goal of their paper?
(11) [BONUS QUESTION] Which formatting style is the author using in that article?
Answer these questions objectively and address any other points you find important regarding the process of writing a strong article like the one you analyzed.