User:Mikeyminnow2319/Communication source/TheSunshineGirl Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mikeyminnow2319


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_source


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_source

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * Yes. The lead has been updated to reflect the content for "Communication Source."
 * The lead does include a definition for communication source. Readers will know what the article is about and how communication is transmitted through our daily messages.
 * It does not necessarily give a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead only provide examples for how messages are sent to the issuer. Suggest listing each major point in the article that's effective to communication source and elaborate in the following sections below.
 * Yes. The lead includes information that is not present in the article.
 * The lead is concise, but it can use more general information about communication source.

Content

 * The content is relevant to the topic, "Communication Source."
 * The content is up to date.
 * Yes, there is content missing. As mentioned, the article needs more general information about "communication source" to explain ways of how it is effective and how it's utilized in society.
 * The viewpoints are underrepresented. We do not have enough sources or information for the reader to get a thorough understanding of the topic.
 * The article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and only addresses the historically underrepresented of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * The content is neutral.
 * The article does not gear towards a specific biased position. It only gives examples about a speaker, finance and education to explain how the sender transmits information for the receiver to interpret the message.
 * The viewpoints are underrepresented. The listed examples could use further information to give a better explanation of how messages are transmitted by the sender and disregard stating each of them in one sentence.
 * Yes, the content attempts the reader to be persuaded or in favor of one position.

Sources and References

 * Yes, the latest content is backed up by a reliable source, however more citations need to be added to the information, so the reader won't feel persuaded.
 * Unable to locate the website. It does not provide a link to where the source could be found. The ISBN states the source is from a book.
 * It's a possibility that the sources are thorough, however I cannot state whether it relates to the available literature of the topic because there's no website URL to justify that.
 * The source is 10 years old. The source is up to date.
 * Yes, the source is written by a diverse spectrum of authors. No, it does not include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Yes, there are better sources available for this topic. The sources can be found on Pace Library and Google Scholar. For Google Scholar search engine, enter "communication source receiver", "communication source message", and "communication source sender."
 * Yes. The links work on the website.

Organization

 * The material added is concise and clear.
 * Yes, the article has grammatical and spelling errors. For example, "a source is a process that generates message data that one would like to communicate, or reproduce as exactly as possible elsewhere in space or time." = Remove the comma after "communicate." 2. "A source may be modelled as memoryless, ergodic, stationary, or stochastic, in order of increasing generality." = Remove the comma after "stochastic." 3. "Modelled" = It only needs one "L." 4. "In sending mail it also refers to the person or organization that sends a letter and whose address is written on the envelope of the letter." = Put a comma after "In sending mail."
 * Yes, the content is well-organized and easy to read.

Images

 * No, the article does not include images to enhance the topic.
 * No images to determine if it's well-captioned.
 * No images adhering to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * No pictures for visual appeal.

For New Articles Only

 * The article is not supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources: it only includes one source.
 * The available literature on the topic is valid, however. There is not an exhaustive list of sources.
 * It contains one section heading called "In Economy."
 * No, the article link is not linked to other websites.

Overall Impressions

 * A couple of things still need to be added to the article for completion, however the added components are improving the quality of the article.
 * Strengths: Provided a definition, examples, and general information.
 * To improve the article, provide more citations, elaborate on the examples throughout the article, include more information on how communication is sourced i.e., the effectiveness of it, the sender and receiver.