User:TherealHarv/Business communication/Sbucket77 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

TherealHarv

Link to draft you're reviewing: Business Communication Draft
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Business Communication

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead:

The lead has a good introductory sentence that explains the outline of the article well. It is clear and concise and gives the reader an exact idea of what information the article will have. It also highlights some of the main topics of the article only excluding a few smaller topics that are subheadings of a key idea. I think the lead is very direct and is helpful in the layout of the article. One thing I would possibly look at is the wording in the second to last sentence. It makes sense but I feel like it could be just slightly reworded to flow better and not sound as choppy when explaining the different types of communication.

Content:

The content is all very relevant to the topic and adds important information to create a more trustworthy article and give a good amount of information about business communication, what it is, and different ways it is applied. This article isn't all of the way complete but the information that is included so far all belongs and is up to date and still relevant to the topic. There doesn't seem like there is too much room for a content gap in this article. It is a broad topic that doesn't really involve underrepresented groups so I believe that this article avoids any form of content gap in that aspect. I think that more information could definitely be provided in order to give more information and be more reliable but this is just a draft and information will slowly be added. A spot I would specifically focus on would be the "Barriers to Business Communication" because the bulleted list is nice and easy to get info at a glace but there could be more to the first and last sentence in that section.

Tone and Balance:

The content in this article all seems very neutral and just seems like a source for information and not a source for an opinion so that is good!

Sources and References:

Most of the links I clicked did work. The range of time the links each range from include 2022 to the 1980's so you get a mix of older and more current. Many of the links also came from reliable sources that are peer reviewed or from different journals such as SAGE journals or many others. This is good because it makes it easier to trust the information you are putting into the article in order to create a more reliable source of information. From what I saw, the references did match up with what was discussed in the article. I didn't go through every single one but clicked on a few to see if I could find what the original article discussed and how it was applied in the Wikipedia article.

Organization:

For the most part the content is well written, the only thing I found was the sentence in the lead and not much else. I think most of the sentences flow and make sense and aren't too wordy or worded oddly that it becomes difficult to understand what the point is. I would say there's maybe a comma or two missing in random places but from what I read, I feel as if this was very well done! The article is also organized in sections and has a good order of these sections so information can flow seamlessly.

Images and Media:

This article contains no form of images or media. I think adding at least one picture would just add a little bit more to the article in a visually appealing way.