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

Topic used to categorize the article

Hello Shushugah. I saw that you changed the GA subtopic to "Computing and engineering". Models of communication belong to communication science, which is usually seen as a social science. The SMCR model is mainly concerned with human communication and discusses, for example, how the communication skills and attitudes of the communicators affect the exchange as well as the sensory channels they use to perceive the message. In this process, no computer or other devices have to be involved. I think the category "Culture, sociology and psychology" is the best fit here. I would go and change it back unless there is something I have overlooked. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. 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)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that according to Berlo's model, the four main components of communication are source, message, channel, and receiver? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that the SMCR model of communication has four main components: source, message, channel, and receiver? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that according to David Berlo's Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model, all forms of communication are attempts to influence the behavior of the audience? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gladys Quander Tancil
  • Comment:

Sources

• Jandt, Fred Edmund (2010). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community. SAGE. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-4129-7010-5.
• Pande, Navodita (2020). "SMCR Model". The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 1588–1589. doi:10.4135/9781483375519. hdl:10400.19/6285. ISBN 9781483375533. S2CID 213132710.
• Tengan, Callistus; Aigbavboa, Clinton; Thwala, Wellington Didibhuku (27 April 2021). Construction Project Monitoring and Evaluation: An Integrated Approach. Routledge. p. 94. ISBN 9781000381412.
• Zaharna, R. S. (2022). Boundary Spanners of Humanity: Three Logics of Communications and Public Diplomacy for Global Collaboration. Oxford University Press. p. 70. ISBN 9780190930271.

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - some concerns

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Phlsph7: Good article. While I will ignore the obvious Mirror, earwig is showing some possible WP:CLOP issues in the lead that I want addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: I'll see what I can do about that. Earwig shows 3 problematic urls:

1. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/648c75b1117c9316916635e7/t/648cc6f8c2239251793f3a0f/1686947576674/pavosidaninod.pdf (98.6% similarity)

   This is a pdf file that, for whatever reason, starts with a screenshot of a challenge–response authentication. It seems to be a copy-paste job from an older version of the article. For example, the references were copied as regular text, as in Other influences include models developed by Theodore Newcomb, Bruce Westley, and Malcolm MacLean Jr.[20][5][17].

2. https://vcmui.teladiseno.com/example-of-berlou0027s-communication-model/72168960 (39.4% similarity)

   The whole text of this page is contained in a single h2 element without any paragraphs or subdivisions. h2 elements are usually used for headings, not for text. The text in this h2 element contains a reference to our article: it mentions "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-Message-Channel-Receiver_model_of_communication". However, it's difficult to say whether this should be interpreted as attribution since the whole content of the page seems to be an indiscriminate amalgamation of text passages and urls.

3. https://testbook.com/objective-questions/mcq-on-communication-technology--639c0f307a7b927a5681780 (34.2% similarity)

   This seems to be an Indian website that welcomes visitors with various popups when opened. I couldn't find out much about it except for the information contained on the website itself and its social media profiles. The page in question claims that it was updated on "Apr 15, 2023". One of the problematic passages is It is also referred to as SMCR model, Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver model, and Berlo's model. This passage is already found in our article before that date. See, for example, [1]. Wayback machine does not store any earlier archive of this page for comparison. I think it's unlikely that the text in our article was copied from this page. Do you want to investigate this issue further?

The other earwig results are below 10% and seem to be unproblematic. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that was the only real issue here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Capital letters

@Phlsph7: I came across this article while copyediting for DYK, and was wondering whether there's a good reason to keep the SMCR words capitalized, both in the title and the article body. They're all common nouns, so we don't have to keep them capitalized throughout even if they form an initialism, and sentence case is to be preferred. Unless it's plainly wrong to lowercase them I think we should do so – just wanted to get your input. (Also, the hyphens in the name should definitely be en dashes according to MOS:ENBETWEEN.) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ravenpuff and thanks for pointing this out. You are probably right about the hyphen vs en dash issue. Regarding the case: the uppercase spelling is standard in the academic literature, both for the full name of the model and for the shortcut. Lowercase is used when the terms appear individually in sentences. See, for example, "Straubhaar, LaRose & Davenport 2015, pp. 18–19", "Agunga 2006, p. 381", "Gibson 2013, p. 140", and "Pande 2020, pp. 1588–1589, SMCR Model". I would suggest that we follow their lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the information – the literature was indeed what I wasn't sure about. I've moved the article to use en dashes and done likewise in the body text. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 19:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)