Talk:Intrapersonal communication/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

I'll probably take a while to review this. Some of the comments whilst I'm working through it will be more-or-less notes for myself, so I'd suggest not rushing to respond to them until I've finished an initial review. I'm looking forward to learning about the subject. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for doing the review. Please take your time and let me know once your initial review is finished. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check
 * I reviewed the top few matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
 * listennotes.com, 35.5%. Site cites Wikipedia.
 * milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/interpersonalcommunication/chapter/3 18.7% -a quote and some common phrases. I've sugested below that the quote is attibuted to what appear to be the original authors rather than to this source.
 * Weebly site for Zell 14.5% - journal titles and an article title.
 * Cambridge site for Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context 13.8%. Just titles.
 * open.lib.umn.edu 9.1%. titles and some short phrases that are OK per WP:LIMITED


 * I didn't find any close paraphrasing issues when reviewing other sources.

Images
 * All images are CC or PD, and are relevant.
 * IMO the diagrams are helpful.
 * On my laptop screen, the diagram of Barnlund's model goes across into the next section. I think that's OK but if you did want to keep it withing the relevant section you could use clearin the source just before the Relation to interpersonal communication heading.

Sources
 * Frontiers in Psychology was on Beall's List but seems to be OK.

Definition and essential features
 * Intrapersonal communication is communication with oneself - UMN source seems to directly cite McLean (2005) for this, but no harm in keping the UMN source as it's easily accessible online.
 * "the creating, functioning, and evaluating of symbolic processes which operate primarily within oneself" - any reason not to attribute this to Barker and Wiseman, as Wrench et al do?


 * Some theorists, like James Watson and Anne Hill, restrict intrapersonal communication to inner experiences - shouldn't this be something like "restrict the definition of"?


 * Oleś et al - use the full name (for Oleś) at first mention.


 * Spot check on Oleś They reject the idea that sender and receiver have to be the same person - no issues.

Types
 * Feels like there are a few MOS:OVERLINKs, e.g. thinking, praying, person. But OK to keep them if you think they are useful to readers.


 * I'm not a fan of several citations at the end of a paragraph, as is done for the third para, but I don't think it's a blocker to a GA status.

Models
 * The start of the third paragraph doesn't immediately make it clear that it's continuing the description of the Barker and Wiseman model. Consider combining it with the second para, or tweaking. (I'm not too worried about this, if, after consideration, you want to keep the text as-is.)


 * Three citations seems a lot for Another model of communication is due to Dean Barnlund, but I suppose this helps readers looking for further detail.
 * Was it a conscious decision not to put dates of the main models covered in the text?
 * I added the dates for Barker-Wiseman and Barnlund

Relation to interpersonal communication
 * Looks good!

Function and importance
 * "exceptionally powerful and pervasive tool for thinking". - I think that the direct quote should be attributed.

Relation to mental health
 * The way intrapersonal communication is conducted can be responsible both for positive mental health and mental illness. This pertains specifically to positive and negative self-talk as well as its relation to the self-concept. - Looks like Farley (1992) is from a peer reviewed journal, so a good source, but is there something more recent that could be used to support this? I don't have any doubts about this text, but I note that WP:MEDRS says "Biomedical information ... must accurately reflect current knowledge."


 * Spot check on It is associated with lower stress levels and a reduced risk of self-harm and suicide - no issues. Text supported, source is a national virtual public health information service.
 * Spot check on A central idea in this field is that a set of negative core beliefs is responsible for negative self-talk. - not an ideal source, but no issues.
 * Spot check on This can help people calm down and become clear on their goals and how to realistically achieve them - no issues.
 * Recent research indicates that using the second-person pronoun to provide self-suggestions is more effective in promoting the intentions to carry out behaviors and performances - I suggest amending to include the date, to future proof it and beacuse "recent" is a little vague.


 * Spot check on Self-esteem also affects how a person communicates with themself and others - no issues.

Research and criticism
 * Looks good!

Lead
 * MOS:LEADLENGTH says that "Most Featured Articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 15 sentences, or about 300 words total.", which suggests that at just under 600 words, this lead is quite long. However, I think it's a good lead for readers and I'm not suggesting any changes.

General
 * There's a bit of inconsistency between American and British English usage. If the article is in American English then I think it's monolog (not monologue); gray (not grey); and percent (not per cent - MOS:PERCENT)
 * I adjust "gray/grey". I think monologue is more common in American English, see . I only found the expression "per cent" in a quote or did I miss something?


 * There are a few minor issues with citation formatting, but none a blocker to GA, e.g. p/pp errors; Inconsistent use of Publisher Location; and, possibly, Missing page numbers for book chapters. (You can see them if you install and use reviewsourcecheck, available through here.)
 * I tried to fix most of them. Some of the missing page number warnings are for ebooks that don't have fixed page numbers.

More brilliant work,. I have a couple of minor comments or queries; I can't promise not to come up with any further quibbles, but overall this is a well-structured, well-referenced, well-written article which, from what I have seen in sources, is appropriately balanced. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the actionable feedback! I hope I've addressed all the main points. Please let me know if more things catch you eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything else needed. I'm satsifed that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks again for all your great work on the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)