User:Alexblenkin/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Communication theory


 * Article Evaluation
 * The name of the article interested me and I was both mislead and disappointed when going to read it. The article is supposed to be about a book on decoding communication. The article was posted with just a short and very vague lead/summary. This left me wondering why it was even published in the first place. The content in this one paragraph has to do with the topic but it is so vague that its not informative at all. There are citations but they aren't reliable. The only source that I would consider reliable is the book the article is referencing. On the talk page there are a few people who modified references used and supplied other sources that could be used for information in the article.
 * Overall, this article was nowhere near done and I can't wrap my head around why it was published. This just goes to show that not all articles are the same and some people publish unreliable and unfinished work all the time; you have to be careful and strategic when referencing other peoples work.
 * Sources
 * Gao, Ma, L., Zhang, M., Guo, J., & Bo, Y. (2021). Distributed Set-Membership Filtering for Nonlinear Time-Varying Systems With Dynamic Coding-Decoding Communication Protocol. IEEE Systems Journal, 16(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2021.3063357
 * Wang, Wang, Z., Wei, G., & Alsaadi, F. E. (2019). Observer-Based Consensus Control for Discrete-Time Multiagent Systems With Coding-Decoding Communication Protocol. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 49(12), 4335–4345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2863664
 * Sources
 * Gao, Ma, L., Zhang, M., Guo, J., & Bo, Y. (2021). Distributed Set-Membership Filtering for Nonlinear Time-Varying Systems With Dynamic Coding-Decoding Communication Protocol. IEEE Systems Journal, 16(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2021.3063357
 * Wang, Wang, Z., Wei, G., & Alsaadi, F. E. (2019). Observer-Based Consensus Control for Discrete-Time Multiagent Systems With Coding-Decoding Communication Protocol. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 49(12), 4335–4345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2863664
 * Wang, Wang, Z., Wei, G., & Alsaadi, F. E. (2019). Observer-Based Consensus Control for Discrete-Time Multiagent Systems With Coding-Decoding Communication Protocol. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 49(12), 4335–4345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2863664
 * Wang, Wang, Z., Wei, G., & Alsaadi, F. E. (2019). Observer-Based Consensus Control for Discrete-Time Multiagent Systems With Coding-Decoding Communication Protocol. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 49(12), 4335–4345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2863664

Option 2

 * Ethics in business communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is somewhat relevant to the topic but the article is extremely short. The lead doesn't give a concise or clear description of the topic or what the article will talk about.
 * The article is not fully written neutrally, some of the statements made seem to be more opinionated than factual. There is lack of citations, I found a few claims that should have been cited and weren't.
 * There were very few citations and I only found one that was reliable. On of the citations didn't look like a reliable source and the others couldn't be accessed.
 * There were no wiki projects on this article.This article lacked effort and research, as well as organization. very little room to tackle any wikipedia equity gaps. There was only one comment made in the talk section. I think this article was poorly written and no one who looked at it would take it seriously to gather information for themselves on the topic.
 * A strength would be that some of the definitions used were pertinent to the topic but the article has many weaknesses including poor display of research and display of explanations.
 * A strength would be that some of the definitions used were pertinent to the topic but the article has many weaknesses including poor display of research and display of explanations.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Models of communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * The articles content is relevant to the topic. The topic is models of communication and there are references to some of the models and the people who created them. The article is written neutrally, commonly stating facts or explanations. I did notice several claims that weren't cited which is ironic because there are over 50 sources that were referenced. There were a few scholarly sources used, some weren't reliable and a few weren't accessible.
 * The article didn't cover one of wikipedias equity gaps. There are no topics that were underrepresented or over represented. If anything I think some of the points mentioned were over represented as some of the communications models mentioned were the most common ones and I would have liked to see the less common ones researched and explained.
 * A common claim made on the articles talk page was that other readers thought that some of the information used in the article was book spam which isn't a good look.
 * One thing I did notice that I liked was the use of pictures and diagrams of the communication models which was a good way to use media to better describe the, for the best possible understanding.
 * One thing I did notice that I liked was the use of pictures and diagrams of the communication models which was a good way to use media to better describe the, for the best possible understanding.


 * Sources

Option 4

 * Decoding Communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. The topic is communication theory which is very broad because there are many types of communication and theory. The lead introduces what the article will be about, defines what communication is and lays out the major points and subsections that will be addressed throughout the article.
 * The article is written neutrally by discussing the different forms of communication theory, their historical path, comparisons, their founders, etc. The article is theory and fact based which leaves little room for bias.
 * Not every claim has a citation. There was a reference to a model of communication with a brief description that wasn't cited, it could have been somewhat common knowledge but still should have been cited when there was a clear theory stated. There were many sources cited and there were a handful that weren't accessible or just led to nothing. Some sources were also out of date. This article definitely did not have all reliable sources.
 * This article definitely showed one of wikipedia's equity gaps, specifically an underrepresented subject. I found that there were a few points made that weren't backed up enough or explained enough with reliable sources to be considered as a reference someone would use when researching the topic.
 * The article had 4 wiki projects and several contributions and concerns. Most contributions talked about some bias comments, or the use of words that hinder the article from being seen as academic.
 * The article had 4 wiki projects and several contributions and concerns. Most contributions talked about some bias comments, or the use of words that hinder the article from being seen as academic.


 * Sources

Option 5

 * Communication in small groups
 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. The topic is communication in small groups and there are subsections on group communication, non verbal communication and others that correlate well with the topic. The lead was concise but a little too brief, I think there should have been a few more points made. However, the content portion was well done and organized.
 * I noticed a few points made that were bias and opinionated that should have been worded differently and had a fact added with citation. Hence why I think this article wasn't written completely neutral. I also noticed a few things referenced in the article weren't cited and seemed like they should have been. There were over 20 sources cited and a handful of them were not accessible making the references unreliable. This is a common thing in most articles I have read.
 * This article did reference on of Wikipedia's equity gaps; underrepresented subjects. I noticed that one of the subsections was culture which is a huge part of communication as a whole, specifically in groups because sometimes culture can affect the efficacy of communication between people of different cultures which is something that people don't know. Often people think a language barrier is the only thing that can be a barrier between culture but there are several other things that should be taken into account about miscommunications between people of different cultures.
 * When looking at the article's talk page, one thing that someone said that I had felt was missing was explanation of the variations of small groups, not jut what makes a small group.
 * When looking at the article's talk page, one thing that someone said that I had felt was missing was explanation of the variations of small groups, not jut what makes a small group.


 * Sources