User talk:Kiyana929/Communication ethics

How does communication ethics relate to journalism and media?

Feedback on your article so far
Hi, glad to see the work you've done on your article so far. It seems like you've put a lot of effort into rewriting the article to be more readable. This seems like a pretty substantial improvement. However, it also looks like some things got lost in the process of rewriting your article. First, the original article had a number of wikilinks which are lost in your version. Second, while the original article cited sources using inline Wikipedia-style references, your version of the article has inline http links to the sources.

I think that you next steps should probably be to merge your changes with the original article so as to 1) restore the wikipedia-style references and 2) incorporate relevant wikilinks. It might be that you're running into some technical challenges doing this with the Wikipedia software. If so, I suggest that you revisit the training materials in Wikiedu and if you're still having trouble just reach out to me. I'm happy to help walk you through the workflow.

Overall, I'm happy with the way that you rewrote the content of the article, it just needs to conform to the norms of how Wikipedia links to other pages and cites sources. I'm really looking forward to seeing how you will develop your article further! Groceryheist (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note from
Hi @Kiyana929, I've posted a review of your article. I think it was a fun read and really detailed as well! Please do check it out and have a rest of your quarter! - Best, @destinyhartanto 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny Hartanto (talk • contribs)

Round 2 Feedback
Greetings, you have received peer reviews from (link), and  (link}}). They both left you really helpful feedback and I urge you to carefully read and consider it as you work to continue improving your article. I want to highlight a few of their suggestions that I think are the most important:

expressed confusion about whether this is a brand new article. I think this is because the changes you drafted are so substantial. Your rewrite of the article really improved the writing style introduced new information, but you removed some valuable information and sources. I think you need to more carefully integrate your changes with the current version of the article.

Both your peer reviewers suggested that you should add more sources and I strongly agree with this. I think that you have found new sources, but you are referencing them as hyperlinks instead of creating Wikipedia-style references.

also suggested adding section headers to your article. This is a great idea that will help it be organized and make it easier for readers to find the information they are looking for.

Reach out to me after you've had a chance get some more work done on your article and you're ready for more feedback. I'm really looking forward to seeing what this looks like after you work on it some more!

Groceryheist (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

More feedback
Greetings. It's nice to see the new work you've done to develop your article. Including information about the codes of ethics from the different professional communication associations is a good idea. Unfortunately, I don't think that all the information you've added is really that relevant to the article on communication ethics. In particular, it isn't clear what the classical greek philosophers have to say about communication specifically. Similarly, I don't really think that the history of the NCA or ASA are really so important to this topic (and they have Wikipedia articles of their own, and you should link to these). And I would say more about the purpose of the different professional codes and what they say.

Similarly, while the different codes or the 10 rules seem like good things to reference in the article. I think you can do more to introduce the different codes or compare and contrast them. You should add some "connective tissue" to explain who originated the codes and why they relevant.

At a high level, I think you should try to improve the "flow" and organization of the article. Right now, it has a promising lead, followed a history section (which is good, but could be expanded) but it isn't very clear from the lead that the other three sections are important to the article and those sections don't offer much to connect them to one another or explain why the information they contain is important to understanding the topic.

Again, it's good to see you making progress, but unfortunantly, I think it still needs quite a bit more development and polish to be ready to publish. Groceryheist (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello . Thank you for your feedback.
 * I have taken out all the irrelevant sources that I had found on the original feedback. I believe that mine makes more sense in general, but I did add a portion of their overview back into my version of the overview.
 * I think that the philosophers are relevant as they are the first to really establish morals and define ethics through "good and justice". Hopefully I was able to connect back to it in the article.
 * I think that the philosophers are relevant as they are the first to really establish morals and define ethics through "good and justice". Hopefully I was able to connect back to it in the article.


 * The flow of the article is to go from background to modern relevance, or at least that is the goal.


 * Hopefully, these meet more of your expectations.


 * Thank you,
 * 2601:1C2:4E00:4C20:B148:7602:42EA:64A9 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay. Go for it and publish your changes! Groceryheist (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)