Talk:Schramm's model of communication/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 20:57, 18 June 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:

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. I've been really impressed by the list of articles you've nominated for GA - this looks like the least intimidating for me to attempt a review of. I may take a while as I'll need to read some sources to assess whether the article is suitably broad and focused. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for taking on this task! I'm happy that the article finally gets a review. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check
 * I reviewed top matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. There's a 98.2% match that I'm confident is a backwards-copy. Two matches at 9.1% are literally just titles. I checked three of the 7.4% matches; again, these are just titles.
 * No problematic paraphrasing found from the sources I reviewed.

Images
 * The diagrams are all CC or PD. They are relevant and helpful to readers. Positions and captions are fine. The diagrams are adequately clear on my screen; I think most readers would know that clicking on the image would produce a larger display anyway. Going beyond the GA criteria (AFAIK), ALT text is present; I think it's adequate as the text explains the concepts presented in the diagrams, so no need to repeat it as ALT text.
 * Regarding the "Schramm's model of mass communication" diagram, the diagram on p.21 of the 1970 edition of The Process and effects of mass communication has a more complex relatinonship between the equivalent of the "green dots" - is this an issue?
 * The red dots are the direct receivers of mass communication. The green dots are the indirect receivers. The main point is that the green dots get their information not directly from the source but from the red dots. I assume the diagram in the source has more variety because group constellations are diverse. But it seems that the meaning of this additional complexity is not discussed in the source. The advantage of our version is that it is simpler and still gets the main idea across. But the diagram could be modified, e.g. by removing some green dots, adding some green dots elsewhere, and drawing some lines between them. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As this additional complexity is not discussed in the source, I think it's fine to keep the version in the article as-is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Background
 * Schramm's model of communication is one of the earliest interaction models of communication and was first published by Wilbur Schramm in 1954 is fine but felt a little bit out-of-sequence as Wilbur appears towards the end; I'm thinking something like "Schramm's model of communication was first published by Wilbur Schramm in 1954 and is one of the earliest interaction models of communication.", but no change is actually required. (I tried rephrasing it starting with "Wilbur Schramm published..." but that led either to repetition or losing the phrase "Schramm's model of communication") Even if it is changed here, I don't think the start of the lead needs to be changed.


 * Jim Blythe argues - consider adding a brief intro to Blythe (e.g. "marketing scholar Jim Blythe")


 * Spot check on Models of communication are simplified presentations of the process of communication and try to explain it by discussing its main components and their relations - no issues.

Overview and basic components
 * Spot check on For Schramm, communication has in its most basic form three parts: a source, a message, and a destination. The source can be an individual or an organization, like a newspaper or a television station. The same is true for the destination - no issues. "in its most basic form three parts" seems consistent with "Communication always requires at least three elements..." in Scramm (1960).
 * Spot check on Models without a feedback loop, like the Shannon–Weaver model and Lasswell's model, are called linear transmission models. They contrast with interaction models, also known as non-linear or circular transmission models - no issues.
 * when the source does not use the correct signs - what's the basis in the [sources for this? (I got myself overthinking here, probably.)
 * From Schramm 1960 page 4: ...such a system can be no stronger than its weakest link... In human terms,...if the message is not encoded ... accurately.... Form page 5, its clear that encoding, in this context, is about using the appropriate words. The goal was to make the idea a little bit more concrete and easier for the reader to understand. Otherwise, this phrase is not particularly important and could be removed if there are doubts. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I think it's useful to retain that. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Schramm's model is based on the Shannon–Weaver model. The steps of encoding and decoding perform the same role as transmitter and receiver in the Shannon–Weaver model - the Shannon–Weaver model has already been mentioned, but not described. Is it worth adding a brief decription or a diagram?
 * That's a good point. I've added a short description. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Spot check on For example, an American businessman is unable to encode their message in Russian if he has never learned this language. And an African tribesman who has never heard of an airplane is unable to accurately decode messages about airplanes - supported by source; as the source doesn't actually specify "an American businessman", consider repharasing that and "tribesman" per MOS:GNL.

Conditions of successful communication
 * Spot check of Schramm lists four conditions of successful communication.... - I'm looking at the 1970 edition of The Process and effects of mass communication and it has "must" rather than "should" for the four conditions; "should" feels a little weaker than "must" here, but I'll see what you have to say. (After all, I've just read that "The lack of overlap can also happen for people within the same culture, for example, when an amateur tries to read specialist scientific literature."!)
 * Similar point to the above re: the message should be accessible to them
 * Good points. No reason for fence-sitting here. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Application to mass communication
 * Looks good.

Later developments
 * Berlo can be "David Berlo" and wikilinked.
 * the analysis of effects found in Berlo's model - consider expanding on this briefly.
 * Berlo's model of the 1960s - maybe "from the 1960s"?
 * I removed it since that information didn't seem important. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Berlo's model of the 1960s - maybe "from the 1960s"?
 * I removed it since that information didn't seem important. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Influence and criticism
 * He objects to it and similar linear transmission.. - optionally, reword. The meaning is clear enough in context but I think the phrasing could be nicer.
 * I did wonder whether "magic bullet" could be wikilinked but I'm not sure any of the options are really useful, even Magic bullet (medicine).
 * The medicine article seems too specific. I think Schramm uses the term in a regular idiomatic sense to refer to an (overly) simple solution to a complex problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The medicine article seems too specific. I think Schramm uses the term in a regular idiomatic sense to refer to an (overly) simple solution to a complex problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources
 * All sources appear to be of good quality. (I looked at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232 as initially I wasn't too sure about that site.)
 * References for A Dictionary of Media and Communication, The International Encyclopedia of Communication, 12 Volume Set, Encyclopedia of Communication and Information and Communication in the Real World are missing page numbers, but this seems reasonable as the entry names are listed, and anyone who is going to follow up on these is likely to know how a dictionary or encyclopedia is laid out.
 * Optionally, you could make the ISBN formatting consistent using Hyphenator


 * Optionally, year rather than exact date is fine for hard copy book publication dates.


 * Some cosmetic and minor changes I'd recommend, though not really necessary for a GA. (With thanks to User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck):
 * p/page should be pp/pages in Ref 3 (Bowman & Targowski 1987); ref 16 (Blythe 2009); ref 25 (Narula 2006); ref 34 (Schramm 1960, p. 13-4.); and a few others.
 * Some page ranges have hyphens instead of dashes, e.g. Schramm 1960, p. 14-7;  Schramm 1960, p. 20-1
 * Scramm (1949) - too early for ISBN, perhaps needs a later edition and an added parameter for orig-year? Similarly for Schramm, Wilbur (1960) [1954] - I think ISBNs were a few years after 1960.
 * Thanks for catching that! It seems the ISBNs were from later editions but page numbers correspond to the editions of the publication year given. To avoid confusions, I just removed the ISBNs. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Scramm (1949) - too early for ISBN, perhaps needs a later edition and an added parameter for orig-year? Similarly for Schramm, Wilbur (1960) [1954] - I think ISBNs were a few years after 1960.
 * Thanks for catching that! It seems the ISBNs were from later editions but page numbers correspond to the editions of the publication year given. To avoid confusions, I just removed the ISBNs. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead
 * Looks good!

General
 * Duplicate links seem reasonable per the recently-revised WP:DUPLINKS
 * Are the instances of "In order" needed, or can they be removed?


 * Looks like there could be redirects created for "Schramm model of communication" (without the 's); and "Osgood-Schramm Model"


 * I've been looking at MOS:TENSE with respect to phrases like "For Schramm, messages are made up of signs", but I don't think changes are necessary. That section of the MOS is not too prescriptive, and we could WP:IAR anyway.
 * I found the article very readable, with concepts explaiend clearly. From what I saw in sources, the article adheres to NPOV and is suitably comprehensive for a GA.
 * I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Great job, . Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)