User:Webb.Zach02/Communication ethics/TherealHarv Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Webb.Zach02


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Webb.Zach02/Communication ethics
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Communication ethics

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.)

None of these updates have actually been made to a the actual page, which I believe we were told we should do as we go along. (might be wrong about this though)

The Lead has been updated with more information about the topic but its hard to see if overall if it reflects any of the new information added to the article. The introductory sentence is clear and concise telling the reader the definition how communication ethics is used, I do not see a specific definition of communication ethics, but I am able to determine what the definition of it might be from the information given in the lead. The lead does not provide an outline of what is going to come further in the articles and does seem to touch on information that I don't really see further on in the article, such as talking about fake news, not sure if that is something that needs to be in the lead of the article, might be better in its own section with more information and then mentioned in the lead for a description. As I said there is information that I don't think needs to be in the lead, but besides that it is clear and easy to understand.

Content to be added is only for the section about philosophers and the section about the ten basics of communication ethics.

Philosophers

The information added quoted from Hannah Karolak although interesting and relevant to the topic, needs to have more backing to it, it looks like it was just copied and pasted from the abstract of the article, possibly without having the article actually read it, this is because the information is not expanded on further which would be beneficial to the article as a whole. Then the next section from the same article gives information that is interesting and relevant but it needs more explanation and information given as I the reader am left a bit confused about why it is fully needed. Both snippets added here need to be explained more, so the reader fully can understand the context of importance and the information given. A good start but more to add.

Ten Basics

Expanding on these basics is a wonderful idea, gives the reader a better understanding of what is trying to be explained, I think expanding more on all of them instead of just 2-3 would be beneficial, but what has been done so far is good

Overall the additions are relevant but need to be expanded so the reader has further information, maybe make it look a bit less copy in paste in the one section. The content to be added is of a neutral tone, seems unbiased, and doesn't represent any viewpoint to much. Information is backed up with sources that are peer reviewed articles as well as some that look like journal postings. All the articles are from 2006 or newer, which still makes them relevant, as the information is less than 20 years old. I do think that there are more sources out there with valid information that hasn't been look into yet for this topic. Links work although some are pay to view.

Organization of the article is the same as the original version, but it still works well for this article, the only thought I would consider is having the philosophers section a sub section of the history section as it almost is just describing the history of ethics and such

Overall seems like a good start!!