Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication

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

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
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