Talk:Source–message–channel–receiver model of communication/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 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: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Please consider reviewing an article from the list at WP:GAN. This review will be used for Wikicup points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AirshipJungleman29 and thanks for taking on this task. The article had to wait for quite a while to get a review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: just a short query to ask how the review is progressing. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Phlsph7, I forgot I hadn't done this. I still have to do spotchecks, but I was going to ask that you try to make sure that all information is presented as simply and concisely as possible, for the general reader. I found some parts written too indistinct or not as straightforward as possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get started with this. Could you pinpoint me to some of the problematic parts you have in mind? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take the sentence "In regard to source and receiver, Berlo discusses four features that determine the success of communication: communication skills, attitudes, knowledge, and social-cultural system." I was unable to understand its true meaning without looking at the image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I've made a few adjustment to simplify this and other passages in order to make them more accessible. Were there other overly difficult sentences that caught your eye? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck passed below. Other parts of the lead especially that could be simplified:

The sentence "Berlo analyzes their features and discusses how they affect the efficiency of communication." can be cut entirely
The sentence "He understands communication in a wide sense that includes verbal and non-verbal communication." can be moved later and merged with the one starting "Berlo sees all these forms of communication"
The discussion of the attributes could, for maximum readability, look something like this: "each component has several key attributes. source and receiver share the same attributes ... which correspond to ... The attributes of the message are code, which ... , content, which is ... , and treatment, which consists of ... Each can be analyzed in two ways... Finally, the channel, which is..., can be viewed as the sense..."

At the moment, the discussion of the model is a bit confused, so a more organised layout, esp. in the lead, would be better.

Other than that, I think the detail in the lead is good enough to satisfy the GA criteria. If you're intending on nominating at FAC, it'll probably need a copyedit and some cleanup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to follow your advice. In the process, I divided one lead paragraph into three parts to treat the components separately. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Random spotchecks

Sorry I've taken so long. Will review 10 randomly chosen citations from this version:

2 neither this nor source 3 verify the title of the book
12 good
15 good
16 good
23 good
39 good
48 good
49 AGF
54 good i combination with Taylor
64 good

Source spotcheck passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 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.