User:Olivia2701/Intrapersonal communication/Ayesha.raziq Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Olivia2701


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The content added to the Wikipedia article titled, "Interpersonal Communication" is relevant to the the topic. Specifically, the content shared includes a general synopsis about the topic, definitions, mechanisms, criticisms of the content, as well as relevant linked Wikipedia articles under the heading "See Also".


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The content contributed is up-to-date with the concept of interpersonal communication today. However, it also draws on historical, relevant information and academic findings that add to the substance of the Wikipedia article.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

In the definitions section of the article Olivia2701 provides a definitions from the perspective of a few select authors. This creates content that is speaking on a specific point of view, instead of adhering to a more neutral writing style that is free from potential biases. This information could have been presented differently and excluded the emphasis on individual arguments.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Overall, the content added to the Wikipedia article posses a neutral perspective and speaks plainly on various aspects of interpersonal communication. Further, even the presentation of "criticism of the concept" adopts an encyclopedic style of writing which ensures that it is simply presenting general concerns/criticisms of this ideology.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There are various claims that are connected back to the author or academic work which originally provided; however, these facts are presented as scholarly findings not individual biased claims.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article provides adequate attention to various viewpoints without


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

This article is neutral with no bias towards specific viewpoint over another. Rather, it aims to inform on a wide array of topics and sub-topics related to interpersonal communication.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are reliable secondary sources listed in the "References" section.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

The content in the article contributions accurately reflects and draws on the cited sources.

For instance the source: Jordania, J. (2009). "Times to Fight and Times to Relax: Singing and Humming at the Beginnings of Human Evolutionary History". Kadmos, 1, 272–277 is drawn on in the "Mechanisms" section.

This article discusses the evolutionary process of interpersonal communication and how it has transformed throughout history. However, it still serves the primary function of increasing human contact and decreasing prolonged moments of silence.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources are thorough and accurately reflect the ideology and concept of interpersonal communication. Today we recognize the meaningful role interpersonal communication plays in our life; especially with the rise of social media our perception on communication has shifted. Interpersonal communication in the digital age could have been a potential and relevant topic of further analysis.


 * Are the sources current?

The sources are somewhat current and each provide useful and current contributions. The oldest resource used is from 1986 and the newest on if from 2012. Further, majority of the sources are from the 2000's and onward, with a few exceptions.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources utilized to draft the Wikipedia article contributions are gathered from a diverse spectrum of authors. Authors all come from various walks of life, backgrounds, and qualifications. For instance, Joseph Macedonia is a retired professor in the Department of Biology, Simon Jones is a parent, writer, traveller, and website creator. Both of these individuals and their works are referenced in the Wikipedia article, yet they come from completely separate walks of life.

There weren't any historically marginalized individuals in the author list; however, still a wide variety of contributors.


 * 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.)

The sources used are scholarly texts and offer credibility to the article contributions made. Authors of the sources used are academic writers that have multiple qualifications producing, teaching and studying data.

The only suggestion I could make in this arena is to utilize current articles on communication in the 21st century. For example: Cyphert, D., Holke-Farnam, C., Dodge, E., Lee, W., & Rosol, S. (2019). Communication Activities in the 21st Century Business Environment. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619831279, this peer-reviewed journal article could provide useful information.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

I have double checked various links at random and found that they are all functioning.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The content contributed to the Wikipedia article is all well-written, clear, concise, and easy to read information. It provides clear indications of the information it aims to communicate throughout each paragraph and follows a well maintained, consistent flow. Using transition words, clear headings and sub-heading are all primary aspects that have created an organized piece of writing.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a few grammatical and spelling errors within this draft. Specifically, the absense of commas, extra words that don't need to be added, and few simple spelling errors. For example, the transition word "presumably" should have a comma after it before continuing with the rest of sentence.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The content added is well-organized and follows a sufficient flow throughout the article. It begins with general definitions of concept of "Interpersonal Communication", moves into specific "Mechanisms" which also include a chronological order, following this is the "Criticism" or the topic, and finally relative suggestions.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The content added to the original Wikipedia article drastically enhances and improves the overall quality. The original article provided a simple definition and glimpse into what the concept of interpersonal communication is. However, with the additional contributions the page highlights the evolutionary transformation of interpersonal communication throughout history. The page is more complete because now it encompasses where interpersonal communication came from, what is does, how we use it, as well as various misconceptions and criticisms of it.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The content added addresses the many phases and ideologies of interpersonal communication. It brings attention to multiple perspectives, uses, and research on the topic.


 * How can the content added be improved?

The content could be further improved or expanded on by including modern day impacts and conceptions about interpersonal communication. Additionally, attention to grammar and spelling could create a more polished look to the overall contributions.