User:TherealHarv/Business communication/Cameronsimons24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

TherealHarv


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:TherealHarv/Business communication - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Business communication - Wikipedia

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: The lead gives a wonderful introduction with links to other wiki pages. The overall concept of Business communication is defined along with mentions of what else will be talked about in the wiki article. The last sentence in the lead I think is very powerful because after reading how this communication can be verbal or nonverbal, the reader will be interested to see how that is unfolded within the article.

Content: The content is very relevant and up to date. I think all of the content is necessary and is important to add to the article while making a useful contribution to online information for Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance: I think the tone and balance is good. The information is direct and is evenly distributed throughout the article. There are not parts of the article that are underrepresented. The article is not persuasive and is informative writing.

Sources and References: The sources and references are all done correctly. The linking of other wiki articles withing the draft is well done and the references section at the bottom is done correctly.

Organization: The page is very well organized, was clearly planned out, and much time was gone into this page.

Images and Media: There are no pictures, or any other media attached to the article. I think a video link to an example of Business Communication would be very effective for people to see the difference between verbal and nonverbal communication. Pictures may be difficult to use and therefore a video might be most effective.

Overall: Overall this wiki article was very well written. The uses of links (that all work) are very effective for directing readers who may have confusion about a particular section of the page or for gathering more information. The page is well written and very direct. I just suggest possibly adding a video link along with fixing the very few (I counted 3) grammatical errors, but this was very well done.