Talk:Models of communication/GA1

GA Review

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: Argenti Aertheri (talk · contribs) 09:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated at 2023-08-23 22:17:57 by Argenti Aertheri

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

• Some page ranges are so wide as to be useless

  I'll see what I can do about that but this may take me a little bit longer.

  No problem, might be useful to go through and see what needs page numbers versus where the chapter will do. Citation 17 is a good example of what I mean.

  I added more specific page numbers for various sources. I hope I got the most problematic ones.

• "Some constructionists" is a bit weasel like, maybe name one or two?

  Done. The original sources did not give examples of constructionists so I had to add additional sources. ✓

• "Example of a model of intrapersonal communication showing the different steps involved in the process." This caption is insufficent to explain the complex image, I assumed the explaination would be in the text, but it's not.

  The second paragraph in this section gives a general description of intrapersonal models of communication. But I agree that this is not sufficient. I expanded the caption to give a rough overview but the model is too complex to be discussed here in detail.

  Perhaps it makes more sense to include it in the prose? Or find a less complex example? Also, see below.

  See the discussion of Barnlund's model.

• This is sort of plagarism: "In this way, the sender "exploits another animal's ... muscle power".[46]" as the citation (46 here) is itself citing someone else. You need to cite the original source (Krebs and Dawkins 1984, p. 381) and where you found it (in Ferretti, Francesco...) See: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

  Done.

  Thank you, this was a biggie.

• Charts, continued: I'm mildly concerned about WP:OR on some of the charts, I'm not about to flag the incredibly simple ones (like the helix), but can you drop a citation on the complex ones? For example: "Westley and MacLean's expansion of Newcomb's model. (from XYZ book)", ideally with the page, but really just anything to indicate that the source isn't your brain. I'm guessing you turned the questionable graphics of a textbook into something actually readable, but a brief mention of which textbook would make me feel a lot better about it. Newcomb's model is in citation 83, and I'll note here any others I happen across.

  Done. The great majority are just vector versions of diagrams found in books, usually with added colors to make them more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Re: Westley and MacLean's expansion of Newcomb's model. — what are X' and fBA? I'm assuming X' is the actual message transmitted and fBA is something related to feedback loops, but you explicitly defined the other symbols so can these two be defined too?

  You assume correctly. I added the corresponding clarification.✓

• "The fault of linear models is that they understand communication as a linear flow of messages from a sender to a receiver." — According to?

  I attributed this and the following claims.✓

• I cannot even begin to parse the Barnlund chart.

  It is explained in more detail at Barnlund's_model_of_communication#Interpersonal_model. I guess the issue is similar to the one we had with the image of the intrapersonal model. In both cases, a proper explanation of the model may be too detailed for this overview article. I see two solutions. (1) We try to give a rough characterization and provide a wikilink to the article where this is discussed in more detail. (2) We remove the images. I'm in favor of (1). I added the corresponding wikilinks in the meantime. In this case, we (or better, the readers) have to accept that this article only gives a taste of a bigger topic discussed elsewhere. The readers may not fully understand what they see but they get a general impression and this familiarity may make it easier for them to understand the model when they see it next time. What are your thoughts? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think for Barnlund's model it might be best to just remove it, it's not adding anything but confusion currently. I don't know about the other one, you might be able to explain it well enough. Your call, I'll pass it either way. Reread the links up above, and ping me? ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 19:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Argenti Aertheri: I removed the image of Barnlund's model and tried to simplify the explanation of the intrapersonal model. Thanks a lot for all your helpful feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Looks good! ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 22:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Copy edit notes

"The process as a whole is very complex, which is why models of communication only present its most salient features by showing how their main components operate and interact." This sentence is entirely correct, but feels "off", change the bolded to "the"?

Done.✓

"Models of communication serve various functions. Their simplified presentation helps students and researchers identify the main steps of communication and apply communication-related concepts to real-world cases.[7][8] The unified picture they provide makes it easier to describe and explain the observed phenomena. It can guide the formulation of hypotheses and predictions about how communicative processes will unfold and show how these processes can be measured.[7][9] One of their goals is to show how to improve communication, for example, by avoiding distortions through noise or by discovering how societal and economic factors affect its quality.[3]" I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out what the bolded pronouns are referencing.

Done.✓

"or that one should greet people when they greet oneself" Change to: or that greetings should be returned?

Done.✓

"According to Robert Craig, this implies that communication is a basic social phenomenon that cannot be explained through other factors, like psychological, cultural, or economic or other factors"

Done.✓

"This response can itself produce new stimuli and act this way as a form of feedback loop for continued intrapersonal communication."

Done.✓

"For example, Wilbur Schramm holds that this relationship informs the expectations they the participants bring to the exchange and the roles the participants they play in the exchange" - I think it's clearer with those swapped.

Done.✓

The use of the word "orientations" regarding Newcomb’s model matches the source, but reads oddly due to the more usual meaning of the word. He also, more rarely, seems to use "attitudes", maybe change one or two to clarify what "orientation" means in this context?

I added a clarification for the first one mentioned.✓

"Gerbner's model was first published by George Gerbner in his 1956 paper Toward a General Model of Communication." — maybe change to "George Gerbner first published his theory in his 1956 paper Toward a General Model of Communication."

Done.✓

"One of its innovations is that it starts not with a message or an idea"

Done.✓

"In Gerbner's example, "a man notices a house burning across the street and shouts 'Fire!{{' "}}." — not a required part of the manual of style, but it does make nested quotes easier to parse.

Done.✓

"For Barnlund, communication is also circular because there is no clear division between sender and receiver as found in linear transmission models." I think that addition makes it clearer, but either works really.

Done.✓

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.