User talk:Jtong95/sandbox

Article evaluation
Here is an evaluation of the article about Crisis_communication.

'''1.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

The major content of this article is relevant to the topic of “Crisis Communication”, but there might be a conceptual confusion between “Crisis Management” and “Crisis Communication”. When editors mentioned concepts of the “Crisis Management”, they should also clarify relations between crisis communication and crisis management. Questions like how crisis communication works in 3 crisis management phases need to be further explained. It can be assumed that different crisis management phases have different crisis communication strategies. The latter “Crisis Respond Strategy” can be discussed under a framework of crisis management. This will organize scattering parts of this article in an integrated way.

'''2.Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

General stance of this article is neutral. The “Crisis Communication Dilemma” item makes an objective supplementary comment on the crisis communication from a legal point of view.

3.Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

The theoretic basis mentioned here is limited. Under the “Crisis Communication Literature” item, theories like image repair theory and stakeholder theory were introduced to explore causal factors, stakeholders’ reaction and institutional responses. Cultural political dimensions and moral controversy issues are ignored. They should be discussed independently, which broadens the theoretical scope of this topic.

'''4.Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

Previous research rarely discussed moral controversy of the crisis communication. It should be expanded and explained here.Jtong95 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)