User:Wolfpack3810/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Nonverbal Communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * When looking through this article it is safe to say that it is related to the topic. I evaluated this article for the previous assignment. This is my main choice because I already know so much about it and it is a topic that I am interested in within the communication field. When reading through it for the second time it is a neutrally written article with zero bias. It is a well developed page with a lot of strong information. Most of the claims within the article have a citation but there are some that have (citation needed) next to it. But the citations that I did look into seemed very reliable. They also came from various sources which gives it broad spectrum that I believe gives it it's neutral point of view. In my opinion it does reflect on an equity gap. I say this because when the article talks about the disadvantages of nonverbal communication it brings in the different cultures around the world and how certain gestures can be taken the wrong way. The talk page does not have a lot of activity on it. There is not a lot of communication going on between the Wikipedian's that edit this specific article.
 * Sources
 * The sage handbook of nonverbal communication
 * Battersby, S. (2009). Nonverbal communication. General Music Today, 22(3), 14–18.
 * Mandal, F. (2014). Nonverbal Communication in Humans . WWW. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www-tandfonline-com.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2013.831288?scroll=top&needAccess=true
 * Battersby, S. (2009). Nonverbal communication. General Music Today, 22(3), 14–18.
 * Mandal, F. (2014). Nonverbal Communication in Humans . WWW. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://www-tandfonline-com.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/10911359.2013.831288?scroll=top&needAccess=true



Option 2

 * Health Communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is a lot different than my first option. When I pulled up the page I got a banner at the top that said "this page has multiple issues." Personally I just wanted to look deeper into this issue because I feel like health communication for the public is a very big deal. It allows the public to get facts straight from health care systems and not just from large news sources like CNN or New York Times where the information could either be an opinion or a straight up lie. One thing that the article does is it gives a neutral standpoint. In the health care field being neutral and not biased is one of the most important aspects. Each claim in the article does have a citation which is also different than the first topic where citations were missing. Some were reliable like the articles that came from Sage but some seemed shaky. This article does not target on elf the equity gaps for Wikipedia. The talk page was very bland the only two topics on it are from 2014 and 2020. Which this is where we could see the problem of why it needs work. Not enough people are paying enough attention to it. After looking at two different types of articles and where they are in their lifespan it's very interesting to see just how broad Wikipedia is.
 * Sources
 * McCullock, S. P., M Hildenbrand, G., Schmitz, K. J., & Perrault, E. K. (2021). The state of health communication research: a content analysis of articles published in journal of health communication and health communication (2010-2019). Journal of Health Communication, 26 (1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1879320
 * Miranda, G. F., Vercellesi, L., Pozzi, E., & Bruno, F. (2009). Improving health communication. supporting the practice of health communication. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00783.x
 * Kreps, G. L. (2014). Evaluating health communication programs to enhance health care and health promotion. Journal of Health Communication, 19 (12), 1449–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.954080
 * Miranda, G. F., Vercellesi, L., Pozzi, E., & Bruno, F. (2009). Improving health communication. supporting the practice of health communication. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00783.x
 * Kreps, G. L. (2014). Evaluating health communication programs to enhance health care and health promotion. Journal of Health Communication, 19 (12), 1449–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.954080

Option 3

 * Mass Communication
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article's information is related to the topic of communication. It focuses on the broad mass source of communication to the public. It is related to the previous article I looked at where it is feeding information to the mass public. The only difference between the two is that this page is a lot more informational and farther along on its life span. This article is written from a neutral point of view and it doesn't seem biased at all. It is just mainly focusing on the different types of mass communications like advertising and journalism. Each citation does have a source but I did see something new within the citations throughout the article. Where it was cited it said (self-published source). This is where I go back on my original claim of it being not biased. I took a look into this source and it seemed not reliable. When editing Wikipedia I feel as if you should do research and just not pull out an article you wrote unless you are an absolute expert on the topic because then it is hard to believe whatever you are claiming. It's hard to believe because you are just saying something that you already said in another article. Within the talk page there is nothing really being discussed. It just gives updates on the article. The last comment that was made was from 2006.
 * Sources
 * Hill, S. J., Lo, J., Vavreck, L., & Zaller, J. (2013). How quickly we forget: the duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30 (4), 521–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.828143
 * Williamson, S. G., Harvey, K., & Bracken, J. K. (1998). Mass communication. Communication Booknotes Quarterly, 29 (1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10948009809361555
 * Switzer, L., & Ryan, M. (2002). The acceptance of critical-cultural scholarship in mass communication education. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 57(3), 213–29.
 * Williamson, S. G., Harvey, K., & Bracken, J. K. (1998). Mass communication. Communication Booknotes Quarterly, 29 (1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10948009809361555
 * Switzer, L., & Ryan, M. (2002). The acceptance of critical-cultural scholarship in mass communication education. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 57(3), 213–29.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources