Here is the plain passage. I start out with a read through of the entire source:
Next, I make sure to find definitions for words that I don't know or that I have an idea of, but might not fully grasp in this context. I do the same with any people, events, or places mentioned that I'm unaware of. I also make sure to check the footnotes provided:
Then I identify some key points in the passage that contribute to or hold a central argument of the whole source:
The key points quoted from the text.
Key points quoted from the text AND my understanding of them.
I find it most helpful to research outside of source to find more information on the rhetorical aspect. While paying attention to grammar, word choice, assumed knowledge, and tone does provide information on the writer and their audience, I find that searching more about the writer and their context helps confirm suspicions.
In the photo to the left, I've pointed out some observations that suggest information regarding the writer, the audience, and the source itself.
Slight grammatical and spelling errors may not necessarily absolve the source of any value, but it does undermine some credibility. This can be used as a method of determining credibility if there isn't much else to look to.
Word choice like "research" and "discussion" implies that the writer engages in scholarly conversation and takes the time to research.
When the writer assumes their readers' knowledge and includes content that proves so, they also start to clarify their audience. Mentions of topics such as "cultural context of race relations in America" and "modern painting," show that the audience requires knowledge of these subjects. Furthermore, the audience might narrow to people living in America trying to understand the history of race and art in America.
First-person pronouns such as "I" and "me" may suggest some personal stakes in the subject, as well as imply a more casual tone.
As mentioned previously, close analysis of the text rarely reveals all the information needed to fully understand the scholarly merit of a source. Researching more about the author and publication can help in judging the credibility and intended audience of a source.
Because the University of Massachusetts Press focuses on printing scholarly works, it's very likely that this work engages in scholarly discussion and that the audience would be other members of academia.
This work, printed in the United States of America in 2011, likely targets scholars in America. As the quilts were introduced to the museum in 2002, the writer clearly engages in a relatively new topic as well.
A professor in the Department of African American Studies as well as the Department of Art History at UCI, Bridget R. Cooks most likely maintains an authoritative and educated voice on the subjects she discusses, giving her credibility and scholarly merit in this work.
Cooks, Bridget R. Exhibiting Blackness : African Americans and the American Art Museum / Bridget R. Cooks. University of Massachusetts Press, 2011.
The world of the internet and research has expanded so much that finding sources that engage in the world of scholarly conversation can start to allude scholars and researchers. Fortunately, information found in sources can help reveal the goal and credibility of the source. By reading closely and researching each source, it becomes possible to understand the merit and rhetorical situation of a source. This way, the world of research and scholarly conversation can continue to thrive in the world of expansive, never-ending writings found across mediums.
Cooks, Bridget R. Exhibiting Blackness : African Americans and the American Art Museum / Bridget R. Cooks. University of Massachusetts Press, 2011.
Underground Railroad Quilt Block Meanings - Hubpages. discover.hubpages.com/art/Underground-Railroad-Quilt-Block-Meanings