User:Ejplacke

Article Evaluation

The article on organizational communication provides a broad overview of what the term of organizational communication really is. The articles provides a brief definition then goes off into the history of what organizational communication really is. The information seems up to date with providing information and history all the way back from the 1950s and 60s to today's world where we as the reader can evaluate the information and link it to modern day society. It provides current research that is going on in the field of organizational leadership that provides and up to date stance on what is happening in this field of work. If any improvements that could possibly be done is the the removal of the "Early underlying assumptions" section. Some of the information in this section could be viewed as opinion based on how the author proposed this topics.

The article seems neutral in base. It doesn't seem like the authors were trying to sway the reader to form their opinion in one way or another rather than to just provide information from the past to the present state.There is a high amount of "interpersonal information" that was presented in the article that seemed very heavily focused compared to other sections. I don't believe the authors were trying to over represent the information but just provided highly detailed specific information on that topic.

Testing the sources and the citation they are linked back to the articles that they are hyperlinked to validating the sources. Some of the sources I could not validate by not having an active membership into the corporation or publishing company they got the information from but they were linked back to that source when going to their website. The sources seem to come from credible sources such as the New York Press, University of Pennsylvania, and the Electronic Journal of Communication.

The talk page from the reviewers said the information is very in-depth in nature. There were as well comments made that errors were in the reading and that the author at some points was rambling. The article was in the WikiProject organizations and was ranked in Mid-Importance.Wikipedia compared to class seemed to carry on the topic more and more but seemed to talk repetitively compared to the text where it is straight for and to the point. The authors on Wikipedia did a great job but some information that was provided here was not in our text so it maybe difficult to link back.