User:TherealHarv/Business communication/Sbucket77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

TherealHarv


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Business Communication Draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Business Communication

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead has a good introductory sentence that explains the outline of the article well. It is clear and concise and gives the reader an exact idea of what information the article will have. It also highlights some of the main topics of the article only excluding a few smaller topics that are subheadings of a key idea. I think the lead is very direct and is helpful in the layout of the article. One thing I would possibly look at is the wording in the second to last sentence. It makes sense but I feel like it could be just slightly reworded to flow better and not sound as choppy when explaining the different types of communication.

Content:

The content is all very relevant to the topic and adds important information to create a more trustworthy article and give a good amount of information about business communication, what it is, and different ways it is applied. This article isn't all of the way complete but the information that is included so far all belongs and is up to date and still relevant to the topic. There doesn't seem like there is too much room for a content gap in this article. It is a broad topic that doesn't really involve underrepresented groups so I believe that this article avoids any form of content gap in that aspect. I think that more information could definitely be provided in order to give more information and be more reliable but this is just a draft and information will slowly be added. A spot I would specifically focus on would be the "Barriers to Business Communication" because the bulleted list is nice and easy to get info at a glace but there could be more to the first and last sentence in that section.

Tone and Balance:

The content in this article all seems very neutral and just seems like a source for information and not a source for an opinion so that is good!

Sources and References:

Most of the links I clicked did work. The range of time the links each range from include 2022 to the 1980's so you get a mix of older and more current. Many of the links also came from reliable sources that are peer reviewed or from different journals such as SAGE journals or many others. This is good because it makes it easier to trust the information you are putting into the article in order to create a more reliable source of information. From what I saw, the references did match up with what was discussed in the article. I didn't go through every single one but clicked on a few to see if I could find what the original article discussed and how it was applied in the Wikipedia article.

Organization:

For the most part the content is well written, the only thing I found was the sentence in the lead and not much else. I think most of the sentences flow and make sense and aren't too wordy or worded oddly that it becomes difficult to understand what the point is. I would say there's maybe a comma or two missing in random places but from what I read, I feel as if this was very well done! The article is also organized in sections and has a good order of these sections so information can flow seamlessly.

Images and Media:

This article contains no form of images or media. I think adding at least one picture would just add a little bit more to the article in a visually appealing way.