Talk:Communibiology

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Communibiology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

This article needs cleanup: it is much too wordy & repetitive, and uses outline style instead of prose. DGG (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article review for CCTP-6038 course

Overall, this article on communibiology provides a lot of useful information, though the language and structure often interferes with its effectiveness. After reading it the first time, I could not tell what I was supposed to do with the information nor where this theory fit in terms of communication theories that attempt to explain the role of the communicator in the communication enterprise.

The article has a good general lead section that introduces readers to who developed the theory as well as its distinctive features, namely the biological roots of behavior that animate communication. That said, the language is a bit choppy and contains a decent amount of jargon, which I think may make it less understandable for a general audience.

These features of the article’s language are not only present in the lead section but also the entire article. By far, however, my biggest criticism of the article is that its structure is odd and a bit impenetrable. The sequence of sections seems fine, but the ordering of information within sections does not, I believe, aid comprehension for a novice or general audience. This is why it’s hard to understand the theory: the structure within sections does not make it clear how all of the information fits together. This is a job left to the reader, which is why it’s hard to understand at times. For example, the influences section is intended, it seems, to provide a background for the theory–how it came to be or what previous work it is building on. However, there’s no frame to really say that. Instead, the major psychological theories that inform communibiology are listed, but there’s no explanation for how McCrosky and Beatty drew from that material to form their own. In addition, the model section doesn’t really do anything.

Though there are problems with language and structure, the article is balanced, with a section (“opponents”) dedicated to criticisms of the theory (though some examples given seem perfunctory). Moreover, the tone is neutral, which underscores that it is a balanced article. The article is well sourced, so the quality of the information is solid.

Overall, there is good content in this article, and it is written in a balanced, neutral way, with good sources. However, the language and structure interfere with the quality of the article overall. Cassdr01 (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]