User talk:Amb549
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Georgetown_University/Communication_Theory_&_Frameworks_(Fall) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Amb549, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Evaluating an Article (Coordinated Management of Meaning)
[edit]Structurally Are the headings consistent? Are images or visuals used as evidence?
--> On the CMM page, headings are consistent. Headings are listed with the general outline consisting of the history, basics, models and examples, criticism, other related theories, and footnotes with citations at the end. This a standard form of flow for this theory. There are no visuals or pictures present. One critique for this structure would be there needs more detail in each transition, which I will elaborate later on, with additional pictures if applicable.
Organizationally Do sections transition well to each other? Does the flow within sections make sense?
-->The transition for each section appears in order, but I would suggest it needs more detail or elaboration. I will chose which sections later that I will revise. Perhaps a prelude into the next section is needed. The lead for example appears narrow and does not provide an outline of what is to appear next in the article. For the most part, I would argue this article is in the preliminary stages of framework. It does a good job of giving a decent layout, however just a little more needs to be done and thoughts need to be tailored. Sections make sense individually, but don't flow as perfectly together as a unit.
Evidence How many references are used? Do they provide good support for the points being made?
--> There are over 40 references and footnotes used for the CMM article. They do provide good support for highlighting certain points in details with specific citations through out the article, which is great. The references they used are credible and popular articles, which are used in other articles too. Understandably, this theory does not have as much specific articles in current case study research that only unpacks this theory. It usually now found in other articles that mention it for other research, rather than solely unpacking this theory differently. Commonly, the main previous studies for this theory are used repeatedly, which of course provides good points throughout.
Content Is there an area that might be missing? Are there questions that could be answered? Can you take some of the further reading and integrate it into the content?
--> To start, perhaps a better lead and definition of CMM first. Then, provide other examples that further each section a little more. Provide more real world examples that can better explain what the author was trying to say. The phases and models would need more explanation, perhaps with the new sources I will be using later on. I will find other articles that use this theory differently and incorporate other findings and examples. Amb549 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)