Talk:Communication/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bart Terpstra (talk · contribs) 14:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): to be followed up by a close reading b (focused): to be followed up by a close reading. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars, but an IP keeps adding in nonsense. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Bart Terpstra: Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this article. How is the review progressing? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the reveiwer has been inactive for several weeks, I've marked this for a 2O and added it to the old nominations list for the drive. Vaticidalprophet 19:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the initial reviewer has been gone since the 7th without really touching the nomination, I think I'll take up this review. I don't expect many issues seeing as the editors on the talk page seem quite knowledgeable, but a full review will still below. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Thanks for relisting this nomination. I had contacted the old reviewer both here and on their talk page but there was not response.

@ArcticSeeress: Thanks for taking on this task on such a short notice. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images used in the article have appropriate licences unless noted otherwise.

File:Stephen_Avenue_3.jpg is a cropped version of File:Stephen Avenue 1.jpg, which is under a GDFL licence. This requires the first image to also have it as it is a derivative. GA criterion 6a requires that media have correct copyright statuses, so I'd like you to revise this.
Some of the alt text in the infobox isn't very descriptive, so I'd like you to revise some of them. Specifically "Conversation between two businessmen" (which fails to mention that they're actually statues), "Sign language", "Written communication", and "Pioneer plaque". This isn't a part of the GA criteria, but I'd still like to see them be more descriptive.
File:Five Senses.jpg - I have nominated this file for speedy deletion as it seems to be a copyright violation. I have gone ahead and removed it myself from the article.
File:Sales contract Shuruppak Louvre AO3766.jpg - The image states that the uploader is the copyright holder. While I'm fairly certain they cannot copyright the image, as it is simply a reproduction of another work in the public domain, the licence itself isn't too important here, as it is public domain regardless.

I may have more to say about the captions as I get to actually reading the article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions section[edit]

The Latin word "communicare" should use the {{lang}} template.
Done.
The Online Etymology Dictionary (cited as OED staff) is edited by a single person, one who is not a linguist or an etymologist. I'd suggest removing it from the citation, as it is akin to using a blog as a source.
Done.
Some of the citations here have too large page spans, making the information difficult to verify. For example, Dance 1970 is used to verify a lot of information, but all of it is cited to the same 9 pages instead of individual pages within the article. On the other hand, Craig 1999 spans over 40 pages, but is only used to verify three sentences. This lack of precision is detrimental to verifiability. Thankfully, the rest of the article seems better in this regard (except maybe Steinberg 1995, p. 2-7). While this is not an issue for achieving GA status, I think going through the article and revising some of these would make it better.
I'll look into that and the same problem in the next section.

Ok, I hope I got all the main ones. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
flowers may be said to communicate by attracting bees (emphasis mine) - This seems like weasel words, maybe attribute this to the author in the prose.
I reformulated it to express that their communication is different from human communication. I don't want to attribute it to a single author since this idea is very common in the academic literature.
an influential and broad definition by I. A. Richards - Do any of the sources describe it as influential? I do not have access to Lyon 1998, so I cannot verify this info.
Many sources cite this definition but I don't think our sources explicitly use the term "influential" so I removed it.
Another characterization is due to Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver. - This sentence reads awkwardly. I'd suggest rephrasing it, for example: "Another characterization is given by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver."
Done.
On their view - I don't think the preposition "on" works here. Change it to "in"
Done.
Some contemporary scholars - Contemporary to whom? The sources are from the 2009 to 2016 (the 2023 source is discussed in the following point), so maybe write it as "Some scholars in the early 21st century" or "2000s and 2010s".
I reformulated it. The important point is only that this view is more recent.
This is still vague. In ten years, would it still be recent? What about a hundred? This type of wording makes articles vaguer than they need to be, and makes it likely to age poorly. Per MOS:RELTIME, "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date". I'd suggest changing this to be more specific. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a date of publication for the citation to National Communications Association. Looking at archives of the URL, it has existed since at least 2017, but again, with no date. I'd suggest removing the date from the citation.
I think this is supposed to be the access date. I changed it accordingly
The paradigmatic form of communication - What does this mean?
Usually when people think about communication, they think about communication between individuals and not between larger groups. This is why the latter have to be mentioned seperately. We could also use something like "most typical form" or "communication is primarily associated with".
I don't think the word "paradigmatic" fits here, as most dictionaries don't even have your definition of the word. I'd suggest changing it. Also, looking at the source, I don't think this is even verified. It states the following: "Communication may take place between units of very different size and complexity. It may occur between and within individuals, ...". There is no mention of which type is the most characteristic/typical/whatever. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't verify all of the info in the section, but I presume most of it can be found in the citations; there were several that I did not have access to. ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help if you require specific quotations. Many of the references have links to google books where at least some of the cited pages are accessible.Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There isn't anything potentially contentious that I've picked up on in the text so far, but I'll keep that in mind. I've provided two extra comments above in response to yours (i.e. in relation to "contemporary" and "paradigmatic"). I'll continue going through the article shortly. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Models of communication[edit]

Provide the doi for McQuail 2008, i.e. 10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecm089
Done.
Maybe specify the page used in Narula 2006, as 40 pages isn't particularly conducive to look through to verify something. E.g. its first usage could be cited to page 23, where the information is actually found.
Done.
The same goes for Cobley & Schulz 2013
Done.
their opinion on the issue - I'm not sure this should have a definite article, as "issue" isn't actually within the universe of discourse in this article. Maybe change the wording to avoid this. I'm also not sure "issue" is the correct word here
Done.
The earliest interaction model is due to Wilbur Schramm - Replace "is due to" with something like "was created by".
Done.
For him - Maybe replace with "In his model"
Done.
The first transactional model was proposed by Dean Barnlund. - This statement does not have a citation. This requires a source that says this explicitly.
Done.
On that note, I'd suggest replacing Barnlund 2013 with a secondary source. Also, it is a reprint of the original, so if you choose to keep it, maybe add an orig-date or orig-year parameter to the reference template.
Done. I kept Barnlund 2013 since it is needed for the quote
Maybe organize all the diagrams into a gallery at the bottom of the section so that they don't flow over into the next section. This has nothing to do with the GA criteria, just a suggestion for better organization.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template "clear" instead. The gallery would also work but it may be easier for the reader to have the diagram of each model right next to the text that discusses it rather than having them all at the end. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human[edit]

The field studying human communication is known as anthroposemiotics - I'm not sure this is the case. The source states that it is the "application of semiotics in the study of human communication". These are not the same thing.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional source. The relevant passage is found on the bottom of the page: ...anthroposemiotics, the study of human communication... Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: The source the book cites for that quote is Wikipedia. This is a circular citation. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. The source itself is reliable but it probably still falls under WP:REFLOOP so I removed it. The following sources could be used instead. I don't want to add all of them since that would be WP:OVERCITE.

Lu, Sheldon H.; Gong, Haomin (10 October 2019). Ecology and Chinese-Language Cinema: Reimagining a Field. Routledge. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-000-69787-2.

Petrilli, Susan (8 September 2017). Expression and Interpretation in Language. Routledge. p. 158. ISBN 978-1-351-52083-6.

Bussmann, Hadumod (20 February 2006). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Routledge. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-1-134-63038-7.

Crowley, David (23 October 2015). Understanding Communication: The Signifying Web. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-317-36730-7.

Two of those sources talk of human communication while the other two talk of systems of human communication. If you think that this difference matters, we could add the "systems of" to our expression. Or do you have other suggestions on how to deal with this sentence? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial toward the Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics myself. If the article was specifically about anthroposemiotics I might have been more hesitant to include a reference work as a source, but here it seems better than a secondary source for evaluating due weight. I'm fine with either wording, as the difference is rather small. ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mediums[edit]

Verbal[edit]

like Esperanto, the language of first-order logic, C++, and Quenya, - I'm not sure having "the language of first-order logic" in the middle of a list is a good idea, as someone may interpret it as it being a clarification for what Esperanto is (or C++, I suppose). To someone familiar with the subject, they are obviously different, but the layman is less likely to readily understand this.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Humans have a natural tendency to acquire their native language in childhood - Should we link to Critical period hypothesis here?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
only for entertainment or because it is enjoyable - I'd suggest changing this to "only for entertainment or personal enjoyment". This avoids having a subordinate clause nested within a prepositional clause. While not explicitly bad, per se, it still reads awkwardly.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-verbal[edit]

A lot of non-verbal communication happens unintentionally and unconsciously, like sweating or blushing. But there are also conscious intentional forms, like shaking hands or raising a thumb - This might be splitting hairs, but I feel like this would be better off as a single sentence rather than two. Also, link Thumb signal for "raising a thumb"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, this paradigm has shifted and a lot of importance is given to non-verbal communication in contemporary research - When did this change? When did this contemporary research take place?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break here. I'll write down comments for the following subsections in a bit. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Channels[edit]

Sorry for the (relatively) long breaks. Real life has prevented me from reviewing this as quickly as I'd hoped.

This is a big article so please take the time you need. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
regular face-to-face communication combines the auditory channel to convey verbal information with the visual channel transmitting non-verbal information using gestures and facial expressions - I couldn't find this within the sources. While this may seem a bit WP:SKYISBLUE-y, I'd still suggest you find a source that gives an explicit example. Wikipedia is, after all, based primarily on secondary and tertiary sources rather than editors' own ideas.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Employing multiple channels can enhance the effectiveness of communication by helping the audience better understand the subject matter - "Audience"? Why not recipient or receiver? This wording suggests that this is not based on one-to-one communication, but one-to-many, e.g. in a learning environment. I'd suggest chaning this wording.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it but I don't think that it matters much. The term "audience" is often used to refer to whoever receives the message, independent of whether it is one or many. For example, from the cited source (Taylor 1962): Here we can talk about the source's knowledge of his subject matter and about his knowledge of the audience. and The source has to select content appropriate to his audience. He must find an arrangement of the material he selects. And he must test those ideas for usefulness with a particular receiver. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal[edit]

[Alt text for image] Photo of a conversation between Kathy Matayoshi and Mazie Hirono - Does it need to be this specific? If the article was about either of the two people in the image, then this would be fine, but seeing as the article is about communication, it could just say "two people" or "two women".
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
, like when greeting someone, during salary negotiations, or when making a phone call - I cannot find these examples within the sources. Including these without a source might be giving these undue weight.
From UNM staff 2016:Interpersonal communication is also more goal oriented than intrapersonal communication and fulfills instrumental and relational needs. In terms of instrumental needs, the goal may be as minor as greeting someone...Couples, bosses and employees, and family members all have to engage in complex interpersonal communication...

From Ezhilarasu 2016:Interpersonal communication...It can be face-to-face communication or by telephone or electronic media.

It wouldn't be difficult to find additional sources. But is that really required? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On this view - Change preposition: "In this view"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
an exchange is more or less interpersonal - "more or less" is a collocation that means "approximately". I'd suggest revising the sentence entirely to avoid this, i.e. to "an exchange varies in how interpersonal it is"
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how many people are present and whether it happens face-to-face rather than through telephone or email. - There should be a comma before "and" to separate the two independent clauses here.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
concerns on - "on" is not used with the verb concern.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intrapersonal[edit]

monologue - The rest of the article seems to use American spelling. This should be changed to "monolog" to reflect that. (Though keep in mind that the article Monolog is about something else.)
As far as I'm aware, this spelling is common in American English. See [1].
Then you should change "dialog" to "dialogue" too. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the word "daydreaming" in the source. I'd suggest finding a source that verifies daydreaming as intrapersonal communication.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it is usually triggered by external events - The sources don't verify this. UMN staff 2016 states "Like other forms of communication, intrapersonal communication is triggered by some internal or external stimulus". Barnlund 2013 doesn't seem to mention this either (though the article uses very dense language, so maybe I just missed it).
I removed the "usually" and slightly adjusted the expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once the child has learned this, it can apply the same technique on itself to get more control over its own behavior - The use of "it" for a human can seem dehumanizing. I'd suggest changing this to "they". Also, change "on" to "to".

ArcticSeeress (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contexts and purposes[edit]

Closely related terms are business communication, corporate communication, professional communication, and workspace communication - I could not find these in the sources.
The sources cover business communication and professional communication. I hope that the relation to organization communication is clear from the explanation. For example, from Hartley & Bruckmann 2008 (titled Business Communication): This book analyses how we communicate within business organizations and how communication is changing. We focus on commercial organizations,.... We focus on communication within the organization...

I added an additional source to cover corporate communication and I removed workspace communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section basically turns into a list towards the end. I would encourage more prose, but then again, the "Human section" is already lengthy enough as it is at nearly 3000 words. I'm certain the last paragraph could be cut out entirely without losing very much substance. I know outline of communication already has a lot of this material, so maybe link there at the top of the section (i.e. with {{See also}}). I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the best solution here is. There are too many types of communication to explain each one of them. But comprehensiveness seems to demand that they should at least be mentioned somewhere. For now, I moved the links to the section "See also" Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other species[edit]

are often easy to notice and analyze for scientists. But it is more difficult to judge - I suggest making these two sentences one sentence (i.e. replace the full stop with a comma)

ArcticSeeress (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Animals[edit]

However, this view is often rejected, especially for higher animals - Which ones? Should this be included? Also, what distuingishes a higher animal from a lower animal? This wording is used later in this section, i.e. Lower animals often have. I feel more specific specific wording would be better here. Do the sources use this language?
I gave a list of examples in the first case. In the second case, I replaced it with the term from the source: "Lower-order living systems". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it has been argued that recursion is a property of human language that sets it apart from all non-human communicative systems - It might be worth including that some linguists argue against this position, though this might be giving undue weight to a controversy that goes beyond the scope of the article.
It seems there are no conclusive counterexamples so far. I added a corresponding source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More complex response patterns are observed for higher species - The source just says "Some species". Please revise, because this seems like original research
I added an additional source and changed the term to "higher animals" since this is the term used in the source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge differences - I'd suggest using the word "large" here instead, as "huge" seems a bit informal.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link social animal
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation concerns the movement through space in a purposeful way, - This seems like a non sequitur unless it is about communicating this navigation. I'd suggest revising this sentence to include this in some way.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think colleague is the right word to use here, as that may be anthropomorphizing animals too much. Also, I'd suggest using a plural here, as the situation is generic
Done
perform a dance - Ditto; I'd suggest changing this to be plural.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a specific type of dance called Waggle dance. I changed it to "type of dance". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plants, fungi, and bacteria[edit]

Why even include Albersheim 2010? The information here is already cited to two other sources, and the book itself doesn't seem to verify it. I'd suggest removing it.
Done. I wasn't sure that the other sources verify the part about the rigid cell walls. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is visual communication first linked in this section instead of earlier?
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for behavior
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plant roots also communicate with rhizome bacteria, fungi, and insects within the soil - "rhizome bacteria"? Also, this sentence does not seem to be verified by the source. The page in question makes no reference to bacteria, fungi or insects, and "rhizome" only appears within a quote on the page.
I removed the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so-called - This is redundant; it should be obvious that it's called that because it's linked to. Please remove this.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes referred to as the Wood-Wide Web - Colloquially referred to. "Sometimes" is rather vague, and may give the false impression that it is a synonym in formal writing.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This happens for Allomyces macrogynus, the Mucorales fungus Mucor mucedo, Neurospora crassa and the yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, and Rhodosporidium toruloides - Is it necessary to include this much specificty? This would really only interest a mycologist.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interspecies[edit]

like apes, whales, dolphins, elephants, and dogs - I don't think these need to be linked, considering most people would know what these are and would be unlikely to navigate to those pages from this article. See also MOS:OVERLINK. This might be an issue elsewhere in the article, but this is where it first struck me as being excessive.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, some species of monkeys use common signals to cooperate when threatened by a common predator - How is this interspecies? Does this mean "different species of monkeys" cooperate with each other? If that is the case, I'd suggest clarifying this.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Computer[edit]

like mouse, keyboard, and monitor - This reads kind of awkwardly without any articles. I'd suggest changing this to "like a mouse, keyboard and monitor".
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern user interfaces - This is technically a vague time reference, but this information is unlikely to change in the future, so I'll let it slide here.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication studies[edit]

such as biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, media studies, and journalism. - Some of these don't need to be linked, as they are already linked earlier in the article.
Which ones? User:Evad37/duplinks-alt does no find any duplicate links. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems some of them were part of larger links (i.e. biology was written in evolutionary biology), and I just didn't catch that. Anyway, linguistics should probably be linked earlier. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Influential early theories are due to Plato and Aristotle,
- Change order of adjectives to "Early influential theories"
- Change "due to" to something else, like "were created by"
  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aristotle held that the goal of communication is to persuade the audience - Odd mix of tenses here. I'd suggest changing this, either by changing "is" to past tense, or replacing the first verb entirely.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communicative competence[edit]

Competence is often used as a synonym for ability - The source says "Ability is often associated with competence." One of the quotes they use does say that is is a synonym, but this is not enough to make the claim that it is "often used as a synonym".
I added an additional source. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They include nonverbal communication skills and conversation skills as well as message production and reception skills - I'd suggest just making this a simple list instead of two lists separated by "as well as".
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of message production skills are speaking and writing while - Add a comma before "while" to contrast it from its other usage (i.e. "happening at the same time") or change it to something like "whereas" where there is no ambiguity.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Using a lot as an adverb is informal. I suggest changing this.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How useful is the detailed description of Marshall Poe's ideas? I'd suggest revising this, as this article is supposed to give an overview of communication in general, but this kind of runs counter to that. I'd suggest leaving some of the information out.
I shortened the description. The important point is to give the reader a general idea of some of there relevant factors. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the cuneiform tablet pictured is purely pictographic. The estimated time of its creation is right in the transitional time between proto-cuneiform pictograms to more conventional writing. I'm no expert myself, but I'd recommend using a tablet from earlier time period here (unless you have reason to believe it is actually pictographic here).
I adjusted the caption accordingly. If you know of a better picture that can unambiguously be described as pictographic, I would be happy to use it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, not all cuneiform writing is pictographic. Most of it is logographic or syllabic, i.e. depicting morphemes or syllables, and not the physical appearance of any objects.
It might be useful to mention writing's development from proto-writing here.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
huge amount - Change to "large", as discussed in a prior section in this review.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This problem was solved by the development of alphabetic writing systems - There are other writing systems than just pictographies and alphabets. I'd suggest mentioning them. Also, this suggests a single, linear development from pictograms to alphabetic writing in which there is problem in need of a solution. The history of writing is far more organic than that. I'd suggest rewriting this to something a là "the development of writing systems like alphabets and syllabaries lowered the amount of characters necessary for writing". Revise as you see fit. You would obviously need sources for this, but they may not be very difficult to find.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their symbols do not stand for regular objects but for the basic units of sound used in spoken language, so-called phonemes - This isn't a very rigorous definition of "alphabet" considering many languages have digraphs and silent letters (just look at English) that don't represent phonemes. I'd actually recommend make it more vague here by removing the mention of phonemes altogether, because a phoneme is something very specific, and most alphabets aren't 100% phonemic anyway. Just say that it's phonetic rather than phonemic, i.e. that it is based on sound. This might seem like hair-splitting, but I'm afraid it might create the wrong impression of what a phoneme even is.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Everything here is reflected in the body, and it follows the MOS on leads, but there is one thing I wanted to comment on:

writing systems (first pictographic and later alphabetic), - There are other ways of writing than just pictographic and alphabetic. This is something I suggested in the "history" section, so once you have everything sorted out there, I'd suggest changing this to reflect that.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments on the images[edit]

Alt text for diagrams: While the purpose of a diagram is to be a visual guide for understanding the content, the alt text should be able to function as a replacement for the visuals. As they are right now, they don't do that. This isn't based on any GA criteria, but it would certainly make the article more accessible for blind or visually-impaired readers.
It would be possible to fill the alt text with a detailed explanation. I'm not sure that this is what was intended for the alt-parameter. For the diagrams of the models of communication, the main points are explained in the text and there are are links to the main pages where the models are described in more detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The large amount of images in the models section is still an issue, albeit a different one than ealier. As it is now, it is an issue for people on computers, especially for those with wide screens. My suggestion might be an issue for wanting to accomplish what you want with them, but as they are, they take up a lot of space.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall assessment[edit]

I feel confident that this article fulfills all of the GA criteria, especially once the issues I have commented on above have been addressed. For completeness, I will provide a summary of the criteria below:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is well-written and easily understandable. The article complies with the manual of style (though it is very long, so I won't say with 100% certainty that there can't be issues)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article has had several claims that weren't supported by the sources given, but these have all been rectified in the course of the review.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This isn't something I've mentioned much in the review, but the article may be too detailed in some regards, though which information is necessary is kind of beyond the scope of a GA review (and beyond my pay grade).
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
There may be too many diagrams in certain sections, which cause them to either overflow into other sections or take up too much space.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article is pretty much good to go now, though I'll hold off on approving the article until all my comments have been addressed. Good work so far. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcticSeeress: I hope I got everything. Thanks for the detailed review. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisifed with the state of the article. I could probably come with more suggestions on specific wording, but I don't think that would be necessary. I feel confident passing this article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.