How does the textbook define "neo-Aristotelian criticism?"

The book defines neo-Aristotelian criticism as "the first formal method of rhetorical criticism." It originally had no structure and guidelines but with time this method developed the framework for how a speech should be formed, organized and presented. This was done by contributions from various people throughout time that decided what criteria needed to be met.
I can understand why it took so long on how to define this type of criticism because rhetorical criticism is a confusing concept as it is. It seems that even though the communication field has come a long way all aspects and concepts of it are still very vague. I feel like as confusing as they try to make neo-Aristotelian criticism if you really take a long at it, it's common sense and a guide on how to be organized.