Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Communication/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2023 [1].

Communication

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is a wide topic and includes diverse phenomena pertaining not only to humans but also to animals, plants, and computers. The article may interest you if you have ever wondered about some of the following questions: "Is communication more than the transmission of information?", "How can intrapersonal communication be external?", "Are there important differences between human and animal communication?", "How do plants communicate despite their limited bodily movement?", "Why is communication between members of the same species more common than between members of different species?", and "Why did the invention of the printing press matter in the history of communication?". It is a level 2 vital article so it would be great to get it to FA status or at least to find out which additional steps would be required. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Khascall

[edit]
Disclaimer: This is my first time pitching in on an FA discussion. Full disclosure that I've made a few comments and edits to the article; also my POV is that I'm a Communication PhD candidate and I do a lot of research peer reviews, student paper feedback, etc.....which are different genres; I hope I've appropriately shifted my thinking out of that mindset and into a wikiway but might not have fully succeeded.
Overall, I reviewed this article with respect to the criteria for an FA article: I feel comfortable that this article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. It appears to follow style guidelines, to have an appropriate structure, consistent citations, and media, without an excessive length. I identified a few opportunities for improvement, noted below; I also made several changes to the article itself.
Lead
The lead is at perhaps the longer end of concise; this is not shocking for a broad topic, and four paragraphs is right at the MOS suggested limit not over it, but I do see some opportunities to slim it down. My first swing at this was oriented to the fact that the lead includes numerous examples (at least 8 'for example' type sentences or phrases) -- are all of these needed? A few examples are good, especially when the example is needed to illustrate something surprising or difficult. So perhaps the bees could be dropped, and maybe internal communication with self need not be illustrated with the example of inner dialogue. Or whatever slimming makes sense; at least some of these examples recur in the article.
Structure
The choices of headers look pretty good to me; there's a nice parallelism in the main concepts of the lead and the headers. Now that I see it all laid out, my only question is whether having mediums as a subhead with no text and three sub-subs of verbal, non-verbal, and channels is the right call in the end. Also, again looking at parallel structure: The paragraph under the Human header mentions the verbal, non-verbal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal sections that follow -- but there's no mention of channels or contexts and purposes. Maybe that's fine, just pointing it out.
It does seem like "contexts and purposes" isn't really about contexts and purposes of communication, it's about other category schema not presented -- essentially academic subfields -- which do vary in the kinds of communication and the purpose of that communication, as well as often representing different bodies of theory. I don't have an alternative header to propose, but I do note that the end of communication studies has a similar listing out of various ways to slice and dice subfields. Maybe these should be combined.
Section-by-section edits
I made a range of language tweaks directly in the article because it seemed easier than trying to narrate them out here. Essentially, I noticed heavy use of a few phrases: 'in this regard', 'in this way', 'for example' and 'for instance' -- sometimes these can be dropped with little loss of meaning. Many sentences seem to start with 'It'. Repeating the original noun might be a kindness to future readers and help guard against decay of meaning as other folks come through and make their own tweaks which further separate the pronoun from its noun. I made some minor tweaks with the intention of streamlining and maximizing clarity where I saw solid opportunities.
Citations
I did a full audit of 5 cites (random number generator), i.e. digging all the way to the original source to determine that the referred-to material was indeed located in the claimed locale. No issues found, for the Chandler & Munday (2011) I only have access to the 2020 edition, but that checked out fine. Kaylea Champion (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Khascall: Welcome to the FA process and thanks for your well-thought-out assessments and actionable suggestions. You are probably right that the lead had a few too many examples so I cut down their number to make it more concise. I don't want to remove too many to keep it concrete and accessible. I followed your suggestion and removed the subheading "Mediums". This is more consistent in regard to the other distinctions by having all of them on the same level. The main goal of the subsection "Contexts and purposes" was to present various types of communication that should be mentioned for the sake of comprehensiveness but did not easily fit in anywhere else. Covering them instead in the section "Communication studies" is also a good idea so I implemented your proposal. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sounds great. The FA guidelines say that newbie reviewers should restrict themselves to comments rather than giving a final evaluation -- but, if I were so bold as to be evaluating, I'd be saying pass. :) Kaylea Champion (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -pass

[edit]

Logic was an unexpected and awesome FA effort, so am happy to see another general topic in FAC! I probably won't have time for a full prose review so I'll just review the pics here. GeraldWL 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerald Waldo Luis and thanks for taking care of the image review. I'll try to do my best but image license policies are not my strong side. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved review
* First image wrongly licenses "I, the copyright holder of this work", when it's a derivative of another Commons work.
    • Done.
  • No problem with second pic. Third pic has an ambiguous source only stating "Photo".
  • No problems with pics 4, 5, 6, 7, 9. Eighth pic, author parameter should be you, and move the two users to the "source" part
    • Done.
  • No problems with pics 10-17
  • Now onto the alts. Note that alts must be as brief as possible while being explanatory. "Statue of a conversation between two businessmen" --> "Statue of two businessmen talking"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of two women who communicate using sign language" --> "Photo of two women using sign language"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a conversation between two women" --> "Photo of two women talking"
    • Done.
  • "Painting of a woman engaged in daydreaming" --> "engaged in" can be dropped
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a firefly with a brightly glowing abdomen" --> "Photo of a glowing firefly"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a honey bee on the Cosmos bipinnatus flower"-- the details here can be removed --> "Photo of a honey bee on a flower"
    • Done.
  • "Photo of a sales contract inscribed on a clay tablet using pre-cuneiform"-- last three words can be dropped.
    • Done.

Comments by Noswall59

[edit]

I won't be offering a detailed review of this article because I lack the time, but I still check in on FAC occasionally and I was intrigued when I saw this. What I have to say would really belong more at the Peer Review process, but we're here and I'd never have seen this over there anyway.

On first glace, this looks like an impressive attempt at writing about a very broad topic – this is always to be welcomed and encouraged. This seems to me to be a strong contribution with much that suggests it may eventually end up as an FA.

But you hoped to find out whether anything is missing. I am no expert, but I noticed a few things which I thought might be worth including:

  • Advertising and marketing -- I know you have the mention of "business communication" in "Contexts and purposes", but I would say advertising is a really vital aspect of communication in modern life. Perhaps it should be mentioned explicitly?
  • Communication theory -- you have presented a nice summary of the prevailing models for how communication happens and can be defined; you have also given a nice top-level overview of communication studies as a discipline. However, I am not sure this article touches much on theories of communication, which are only briefly alluded to in the "Communication studies" section. I'm not suggesting you go into depth, but is there scope to at least mention some major theories here?
  • Cryptography, secret codes and (military) signals -- I can't see that these topics are mentioned, but they are specific and quite interesting forms of communication.
  • Shibboleths -- I couldn't find this word and it made me wonder whether there is something to be said for the role of communication that is deliberately but subtly exclusionary between insiders and outsiders, or which carries different meanings depending on one's insider-outsider status.
  • Propaganda and obfuscation in political communication -- firstly, you mention propaganda once, but could a little more said on this? On obfuscation, I'm thinking of Orwell's "Politics and the English Language": political language "is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind". Is there something interesting to be said here about how some writers consider political language to be less about conveying something clearly than about obscuring truth or avoiding commitment, while appearing to be honest? (Cf: Spin (propaganda)). I know this sounds cynical, but it strikes me as saying something interest about communication itself.
  • Literature, poetry and (especially) music -- it struck me as a little odd that these terms get no mention at all, especially music which is a very special type of human communication, one which conveys a clear meaning through lyrics, but which also communicates in much more complex and non-verbal ways; the abstract of this pre-print had some interesting thoughts: [3]. Is there any more out there on this topic?
  • Flags, symbols of identity, heraldry -- these non-verbal symbols communicate identity, sometimes in very politically charged and contested ways (I'm also not just thinking national flags, but even things like sports colours and badges); flags are also used to communicate messages in shipping.
  • Art -- I don't think art gets a mention; is it a medium of communication? I would argue so, but what does the literature say?

These are intended merely as prompts for your thought; they are not prescriptions or demands, nor should a coordinator read them as objections; I'm happy for you to refute them as you will know more about this topic than me. I know it's a big topic and everyone could have "one more thing" to add; no doubt you've already considered some of these suggestions any way and I may also have missed things in the article - I merely skimmed it. But I'm hoping that at least a few of the points I've mentioned may invite some thoughts and possibly even additions to the article. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Noswall59 and thanks for your short review and all the suggestions. I think all the points you mentioned belong to communication. I implemented some of them, see below. One of the main difficulties with this type of broad topic consists in deciding what to mention and how much information to include. There are countless types of communication and we could probably fill a whole article just by listing all of them. For example, an earlier version of this article mentioned several additional types of communication in the section "Contexts and purposes". But in the process of the GA review, it was decided that this is too much detail for this type of overview article and that it is better covered in the article Outline of communication. My approach has roughly been to follow what is commonly discussed in the overview sources on communication in general for this type of decision.
I added a short characterization of marketing communication to the section "Contexts and purposes". I also added a brief overview of different theories of communication. However, they have nowhere near the same importance as models of communication in this field (see, for example, Cobley & Schulz 2013, pp. 8–9). I further found a way to mention cryptography and flags. I left the others out since it is my impression that these specific forms do not play an important role in overview sources. In theory, they could be included by adding a sentence like "Communication is also relevant to A, B,...." at the end of the section "Contexts and purposes". However, I don't think this would be very helpful to the reader. If there is a Wikipedia article on the specific type of communication, like Agricultural communication, then it could be added to the section "See also".
If you have more observations then please let me know. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Phlsph7, I appreciate you taking my points into consideration; I trust you to know best what balance the sources give to each of these themes and will respect that. Glad that at least a couple of those points now get a mention. Best of luck with this -- it's great to see such good work being done to vital articles. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CMD

[edit]

Bravo for taking this on. I'll try and communicate a few thoughts and questions here, please feel free to tell me they're way off-base on this very broad topic. I haven't read any of the sources, just reading the article as is.

Hello Chipmunkdavis and thanks for the helpful comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The term can also refer to the message itself and to the field of inquiry studying these transmissions, also known as communication studies." I'm not sure about this second sentence, it feels like a disambiguation and thus a movement off the article topic. I see what the sentence is trying to do, but it feels awkward.
    You are correct that this is a disambiguation. It should be mentioned somewhere but it's not essential to mention it in the lead. It's currently also discussed in the section "Definitions". I hope this is sufficient so I removed the sentence from the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Communication can be classified based on whether information is exchanged between humans, members of other species, or non-living entities such as computers." Is this the main classification? Intuitively I would've classified communications by mode, which can be shared by humans, other species, and computers. This classification also ignores communication within an individual (eg. along nerves). I see communication within a body is mentioned in Definitions, so I suppose my query is whether this specific classification system is the one to mention in the lead as the classification system.
    There are different ways how to classify communication and they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Many overview sources focus either on human communication, animal communication, plant communication, or computer communication. So if one wanted to divide types of communication by mode, this could result in various difficulties on the level of the sources in trying to come up with a balanced way to combine them. There are also different ways how modes can be distinguished (verbal vs non-verbal, auditory vs visual,...) so one would have to decide which one should take precedence. The main classification was already discussed at length before several parts of the article were rewritten, see Talk:Communication/Archive_1#Types_of_communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I added a sentence on communication within an organism on the level of organs and cells to the subsection "Intrapersonal". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say I particularly picked up in that archive the prominence of this, but I think a small change would help to just acknowledge the complexity, even a simple shift from "Communication can be classified based on whether information..." to something like "A common way to classify communication is by whether information..." CMD (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wary of the natural selection inclusion in the lead. Communication is important for natural selection certainly, but then so is everything a species is/does in a way, and tying any one piece of communication to natural selection feels very odd. I note this is mentioned in the body, "it is often difficult to assess the influence of such behavior on natural selection".
    The main point is not that communication helps natural selection but that researchers include this criterion in their definition to distinguish communicative behavior from other phenomena since it is often difficult for them to draw this distinction. However, this context is only explained later in the section "Other species". You are probably right that without it the inclusion may feel odd. I removed the reference to natural selection and mentioned instead that the individuals benefit, which is hopefully accessible without this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boldly reworded a plant sentence, attributing their communication strategy just to cell walls feels highly reductive (and some animals use chemicals). there are numerous other factors in play there, and it somewhat begs the natural selection question.
    This is one of the key factors but you are right that other factors are also involved. I think your reformulation works fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interspecies communication happens mainly in cases of symbiotic relationships." It feels like there is a lot hanging on this "mainly". Stotting may very well be a springbok communicating with nearby lions. Certainly, when a cat hisses at you and raises its fur it's trying to communicate across species lines.
    Yes, the "mainly" is a key point here. Most of the paradigmatic examples of interspecies communication are from symbiotic relationships but it is not restricted to them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The human paragraph could say a bit more, and perhaps also include a little bit on computing.
    Currently, computer communication has its own section. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to include it in the section "Human". But it would be possible to add references to it where it is applicable. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the lead again, the computing still feels missing. The second paragraph opens with the human/living/nonliving classification, then has a paragraph on humans (cleverly incorporating other classifications), and a paragraph on other living species, but then nothing on nonliving. Just a sentence perhaps at the end of the current fourth history paragraph, something like "These technologies led to new forms of communication within themselves, with data being transferred between devices and within networks." CMD (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, I think I misunderstand your initial comment. That's a good point about mentioning computer communication in the lead. I added a variation of your suggestion to the 4th lead paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Based on your assessment, are inclined to support or oppose this nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not inclined to oppose! A new weekend is approaching, I will look a bit more. CMD (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To re-iterate I am throwing ideas out here as I read through, for consideration not to take as writ.

  • "sound, paper, bodily movements, or electricity", should that be "sound, writing, bodily movements, or electricity"? Or some other word that encompasses drawings that eludes me at the current moment.
    I replaced "paper" with "written signs". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Communication can happen within one individual and between two or several individuals." I asked someone else to have a look at the article and they didn't quite follow what this meant, perhaps there is a way to restructure. The source has a preceding sentence framing differences in scale and complexity (and also notes the interesting point about spatial and temporal differences between modes of communication). Perhaps this article can use the framing of the previous sentence, "sender to a receiver", something like "The sender and receiver can be units within within one individual, be individuals themselves communicating with one or more others, and even larger conceptual bodies such as organizations, social classes, or nations"?
    I reformulated it using the terms "sender" and "receiver". I hope that makes it clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've found the disconnect around natural selection. The wording in the article, "playing a beneficial role in natural selection", feels off as it puts communication in the role of affecting natural selection. Of the three sources I could access two, and the wording they use is "fashioned and maintained by natural selection" and "favored by natural selection", which instead has the implication of natural selection acting on communication. I would suggest that if you like the current wording, changing "natural selection" to something like "survival and reproduction" would keep the intended meaning intact.

CMD (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the additional comments, I hope I was able to properly address them. Please let me know if there are more points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing in Chandler & Munday 2011, p. 58. or Burton & Dimbleby 2002, p. 126. a mention of language as a key distinction, although certainly it feels important. (I don't think verbal communication should wikilink to Linguistics here, makes it appear redundant to the language point.)
    The list of distinctions in Chandler & Munday 2011, p. 58 contains ...verbal or *nonverbal.... It does not explicitly say that it is a "key distinction". I've added Sinding & Waldstrom 2014, p.153, which explicitly says that An important distinction in communication literature is the one between verbal (written and spoken) and non-verbal communication. I also removed the wikilink. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite understanding the distinction between "linguistic form or by means of language", and in general am curious as to verbal communication outside of language. Is this not mentioned in any sources, or does it all (eg. a primal scream) fall under some nebulous classification as "language"? It appears to be partially in the non-verbal communication section as "vocalics". That section also goes onto talk about paralanguage from written language, which is a bit confusing given the previous section (read this all together with next comment, sorry they're overlapping as I'm reading further and going back and editing). The non-verbal section also includes crying and babbling, and the babbling article says it's a precursor to language, so surely that is verbal if language is verbal (and it is colloquially verbal!)?
    linguistic form or by means of language this was not meant as an "exclusive or". I replaced it with "i.e." to avoid confusion. So, according to the main distinction in this subsection, verbal communication = communication through linguistic means. In colloquial usage, the term "verbal communication" is sometimes used for oral communication. This distinction is discussed in the third paragraph. In this sense, crying and babbling might be understood as verbal/oral communication without language (I'm not sure if the sources would agree on that). But this is not how the distinction is used in the academic literature. Crying and babbling are usually classified as non-verbal/non-linguistic communication. For example, from the source for crying and babbling (McCormack, McLeod & Harrison 2017, p. 60): Before babies develop words, they develop prelinguistic (non-verbal) behaviors ... crying ... babbling.... Paralanguage is usually classified as non-verbal communication. I made a slight modification to the paragraph in the hope of clarifying this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So just to make sure we have the same platform of understanding, the academic literature is clear that when they say "verbal communication" they mean "linguistic-type communication", and you have written the relevant sections precisely in line with this distinction? If so, I don't think this is a problem per se, but it is certainly an initial surprise for me who has not been immersed in the literature. I'm still thinking around this point, but at the moment I would suggest another explanation of this distinction is needed in the Paralanguage part, specifically after the words "concerns the use of voice in communication" appear in a "Non-verbal" subsection. I would also treat this clearly as its own paragraph (splitting off Chronemics onwards), and provide the initial coverage of crying (seems similar to my shouting example) and babbling (feels to me who has not read the literature as between crying and linguistics) in that section with careful wording to reinforce the academic point. ie. explain distress and infant health in the paralanguage paragraph, and just refer to them as examples (ie. "like crying and later babbling") in the paragraph on research. CMD (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are on the same platform of understanding here. Some examples from the cited sources:
    • from Danesi 2000, p. 58: verbal communication is Communication by means of *language
    • from Chandler & Munday 2011, p. 448: verbal communication is Human *interaction through the use of words, or *messages in linguistic form. They also discuss the distinction between the colloquial usage and the academic usage.
    The topic is not easy and you are right that readers who try to understand this section based on the colloquial understanding of "verbal" could get confused. I tried to follow your suggestions to make the academic understanding more explicit not just in the beginning but also during the more specific explanations. I rewrote the part on paralanguage, split off the passage on chronemics, and mentioned crying and babbling as examples that do not require language. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are crying and babbling paralanguage or something else? CMD (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are most likely categorized as paralanguage. I haven't done a detailed research but at least according to this source, crying is paralanguage. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also on the overlap with written communication, the section clearly takes language=verbal communication, and thus a "system of symbols" as verbal communication. Assuming this is as later noted the general academic view, and that all the discussion on languages includes the colloquially non-verbal items, I would include that note on the academic distinction at or near the start of that section (separated from the parts on children picking up languages, which seems unrelated). It definitely needs to occur before the sign language sentence. (If sources allow, I would personally opt for a sign language example such as Nicaraguan Sign Language which is as far as I know an isolate and thus more interesting communication-wise, but that's a very minor point.)
    I moved the paragraph on the colloquial usage one paragraph up to appear before the discussion of sign languages. I also added Nicaraguan Sign Language as an example. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the wikilinked articles, which seem to be about digital communication, I don't think either wikilink in "Interpersonal communication can be synchronous or asynchronous" should be there.
    I removed the wikilinks. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "channels" mentioned in the Channels subsection the same as the "modalities" mentioned in the non-verbal section? They read similarly, and explicitly make the same point of the multi-channel/modal communication being clearer. If they are, more consistent vocabulary would be preferable. If they are different enough to repeat these points, perhaps this could be explained somewhere.
    The ideas are very similar but not identical. For example, if a teacher writes a message on a blackboard and uses their body language to emphasize this message, these are two modalities (writing and body language) using the same channel (visual). Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Channels subsection is in the "Human" section, but seems to stray into more general points including about computing. Should it perhaps be cut down to humans, or separated into a standalone section?
    I agree, the part about the relation to computers is too specific for a section on human communication. I removed the corresponding passage. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that academic distinction about verbal=language needs to be clarified again in the animal section somehow, as a reader who say is on mobile and opens just the Other species section is confronted with "animal communication is restricted to non-verbal communication".
    I added a short clarification. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related point, I am surprised the animal section has no mention of animal languages. The section as a whole takes a very animal=non-language approach in its wording and framing, which definitely is true on aggregate, but the potential exceptions are there (and the "For many species, the offspring depends on the parent for its survival" phrasing is likely referring to a minority of species, putting it out of step with the overall generalizing language).
    Animal language is similar to body language: they have the word "language" in their names but they are usually not seen as languages when the term is understood in a strict academic sense. However, as also discussed in the article, there is no generally accepted definition of "language", which further complicates this issue. I adjusted the expression For many species, the offspring. I'll stop for now and I'll see later if there is a good way to mention animal languages. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence to mention animal language. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On cell walls, I haven't checked the sources but I don't see how they are responsible for plants not being able to receive signals from motion. That is presumably due to a lack of receptors, and I don't see why theoretically this receptor could not develop in walled cells (cameras have hard walls yet can pick up motions).
    The cited source says: Rigid cell walls generally do not allow plants to send and receive signals that require rapid movement of organs or cells. You are right that, strictly speaking, it is probably not "impossible". I weakened our formulation to reflect this. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What cell walls might do is prevent the sending of auditory information, this is implied later in the first paragraph but it would be helpful to see it explicit alongside visual information.
  • "plant communication researchers often require that there is some form of response in the receiver and that the communicative behavior is beneficial to sender and receiver", from the previous section this also applied to animal communication researchers, so if it is the same point plant researchers should not be singled out and the sentence can make some reference to this already established point within the Other species section. (As an aside, the intentionality not mattering point is a great inclusion that I've never considered before despite seeming obvious now.)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an idle thought, do any sources mention lichens or similar cases? Presumably those involve some heavy and protracted 'communication' of a sort.
    I don't remember reading about lichen communication in particular but I wouldn't be suprised by it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Some animal species also engage in interspecies communication, like apes, whales, dolphins, elephants, and dogs." is tantalizing, I'm upset the main article doesn't give much more on some of these, although I'm not suggesting more go here! One tiny item that could perhaps be added is a bit more on the dog intentionality in communicating with humans, as the current wording feels like it assigns human to dog communication intentionality, but dog to human communication is only mentioned as interpreting emotions, which doesn't accord with the dogs that have to my best understanding very intentionally asked me for food and for pets.
    I reformulated the passage to give more agency to dogs in the communicative process. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only distinction given between LANs and WANs seems to be distance, and I don't see exactly how that distinction affects any of the classifications of communication mentioned so far. PANs CANs and MANs also seem unrelated to the topic at hand.
    The idea of computer networks is central to computer communication and this is one of the main ways how different network types are distinguished. The two overview sources Hura & Singhal 2001 and Stallings 2014 discuss this distinction in their first chapters and also revisit it later. It would be possible to present this paragraph later after the paragraph on communication protocols. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What isn't clear to me from the text is how communication within a LAN is meaningfully different from communication within a WAN, PAN, CAN, or MAN. CMD (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One important difference between LANs and WANs besides distance is that LANs usually establish a direct connection between devices while for WANs, the connection is normally mediated through the public telephone network by using several intermediate connection nodes to relay the data between the endpoints. Other differences would be speed, security, the number of connected devices, and practical usage (like sharing printers and personal files vs accessing websites and sending emails). The distinction between LANs and WANs is the most discussed one. The other types are mentioned mainly for the sake of comprehensiveness. I think at least the difference between LANs and WANs should be mentioned somewhere in the section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link between computer security/cryptography and communication is also not quite clear.
    I added a short clarification about their role for successful communication. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't quite tell from the text here what the scope of Human-computer communication is. I can read parts of it as only referring to to one-way communication, human to computer, but others parts (eg. graphics) seem to convey some form of 'intentionality' of the computer 'communicating' with the human.
    I added a short clarification about the exchange of inputs and outputs to make this point more concrete. "Intentionality" is probably the wrong word but you are right that this is not a one-way communication but an exchange of information. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some simplex and half-duplex examples in the above section might also be maybe defined as computer to human 'communication', so perhaps they don't fit in the communication protocol paragraph?
    There is some overlap here. The idea behind including them in the protocol paragraph is that the protocol may determine how the systems are synchronized and which type of exchange is allowed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who does not like short form citations in Wikipedia article, the links to page numbers was a real boon, so I'm sad to report that the link in Berger, Roloff & Ewoldsen 2010, pp. 3–4. is just to the gbook.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Communicative competence section reads as if it should be included within the Human section. Within that, I don't think the barriers to effective communication should have its own header as is, it's short and only deals with very specific human-affecting barriers to communication, rather than the much broader possible spectrum of communication barriers.
    Done. I was hesitant to include it in the section "Human" since this section is already very long but it's probably for the best. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section might similarly fit under Human, but it is less clearcut and I can see the benefit from keeping it separate. I might slightly quibble that written communication does depend on human memory and that's why we can't read a whole lot of things, but I do see what this is saying so don't feel this needs to be clarified if you don't have an effective solution easily on hand.
  • Literacy is mentioned as something impacted by the spread of written works (obviously true), but it feels like (a lack of) it might also have been a factor in limiting "the spread of written communication within society". The spread of literacy, and perhaps even more recently computer literacy, the societal aspects of communication history, feel not given due attention in a section which has a reasonable amount of detail on technical/technological aspects of the relevant history.
    This factor was surely there but, as far as I'm aware, the reliable sources usually don't give much attention to this point. One reason might be that the increased speed at which written documents spread was already astonishing despite that. Most attention is usually put on the different technological developments and how they affected people by making new forms of communication available. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a way to mention the relation between new technologies and new skills without emphasizing their role as a limiting factor. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long, but at least I've reached the end of the article. I made a few minor edits here and there, feel free to tweak/revert if I've missed something. I checked a few sources, but definitely a tiny fraction so please let me know if any of my above comments are simply misplaced due to my missing of relevant knowledge. Regarding the FACR, I suppose my biggest concern is the elements of confusion and inconsistency around the linguistic/verbal coverage, which I guess is 1a although the prose is both engaging and professional. I have a few comments that relate to 1b on comprehensiveness, but I'm unsure how strong those are as I've not checked the sources, please do let me know if they're simply not given weight in the relevant bodies of knowledge. Aside from the language key distinction I mentioned the other sources I checked supported 1c, I mentioned a couple of areas where the text seemed to stray slightly off topic (4) but this was minor, no issues jumped out relating to the rest of the criteria. CMD (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this comprehensive review and for all the suggestions. I tried to implemented most of them except for a few, for which I provided a short explanation. I hope these changes were able to make the relevant distinctions clearer. Please let me know if some of the points need further work. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few remaining questions above which I hope might get figured out somehow, and made a few more bold copyedits (whose reversion would not affect this assessment). However, these are now well beyond the point where 1a, 1b, and 1c have been met, and the article meets the "well polished" spirit, so I would support an assessment that the FACR are met. CMD (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! The copyedits help improve the logical structure and having the distinction between the academic and the collocial usage of the term "verbal" right at the beginning is a good call. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Will review soon. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • controversial issues are whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication does not only transmit meaning but also creates it. - might just be me, but the structure of this sentence is confusing; the use of "controversial issues are" makes it seem like an issue itself (at least, that's how I read it)
    I tried to reformulate it to avoid this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-verbal communication happens without the use of a linguistic system, for example, using body language, touch, and intonation. - to my understanding, intonation is the inflection with which one speaks- not non-verbal? Also, "intonation" isn't anywhere else in the article
    Intonation belongs to paralanguage. It is usually seen as a non-verbal aspect of speech and is discussed in the section "Non-verbal". However, you are right that this could be confusing to readers since it accompanies speech. I replaced it with another example of non-verbal communication in this sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wl pets
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

  • many animals communicate within their own species and plants like flowers communicate - there's no "Like __" after animals, so I don't think "like flowers" makes sense here- "some plants" would sound better, or simply cutting plants and just saying "flowers"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One version of this view is given by Paul Grice, who identifies communication with actions that aim to make the recipient aware of the communicator's intention.[15] One question - both sentences start with 'One"- switch it up
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Models

  • An influential classification distinguishes between linear transmission models, interaction models, and transaction models. - what does "influential" mean here? Is the classification influential in the field of comms studies? Or is that the literal name as stated by academics?
    I added "in communication studies" to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human

Very nice so far, more soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other species

Computer

Will finish soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communicative competence

  • Effectiveness is closely related to efficiency but not identical to it. The difference is that effectiveness is about achieving goals while efficiency is about using few resources (such as time, effort, and money) in the process. - merge: "Effectiveness is closely related to efficiency, the difference being that effectiveness is about achieving goals while efficiency..."
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is "the perceived legitimacy or acceptability of behavior or enactments in a given context". - attribute quote
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7, all done! No issues found in Communication studies or History- this was a very interesting read and an extremely impressive one. Most of my comments were nitpicky gramatical things, so I commend you for the quality of this article. I hope to stop by the Philosophy PR sometime, but I've gotten quite busy IRL, so I can't make promises on that one. In the meantime, if you get a chance, would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks for bringing this article forth and improving such vital articles! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: Thanks for all the useful feedback. I hope I was able to address all the main points. Are you inclined to support or oppose this nomination?
If you find the time, I would appreciate your input at the Philosophy PR. I'll take a look at Appalachian Spring and I hope to have some comments in a day or two. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was waiting on the reply just to make sure everything was in good shape- support now, lovely work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

spotchecks not done

DWB

[edit]

Disclosure: I was asked to review this FYI: It's not in my wheelhouse but I will do my best to identify points of interest

  • You refer to I.A. Richards but don't explain who he is. His article suggests he has a few roles so maybe just pick the most relevant one? I think it would possible be "literary critic", so "According to a broad definition by literary critic I. A. Richards,"
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver. This will be the same for any other names in the article, although I can see you have done it for people like "Communication theorist Brian H. Spitzberg "
    Done. I went through the article one more time. I hope I didn't miss any names. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again this is not my area of expertise but shouldn't the "history of communication" section be near the top? Like the 2nd section at least? The history section seems to be defining how understanding of communication has evolved which seems more important than the section on models?
    The topic of the history of communication does not play a central role in the field of communication studies, which gives much more emphasis to topics like how to define communication and what its main components and types are. For example, Fiske's "Introduction to Communication Studies" starts with theories and models of communication but has no chapter on the history of communication. The entry "Communication" in Watson's and Hill's "Dictionary of Media and Communication Studies" uses a similar approach. I tried to follow this type of emphasis in the section order. Since the most logical place of a history section in this type of article is either the beginning or the end, I put it at the end. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make clear that dogs/pets learn to "understand" in this sentence "Dogs are able to learn to respond to various commands, like "sit" and "come". They can even learn short syntactic combinations, like "bring X" or "put X in a box"". It makes it sound like a dog can learn to say "Bring x".
    Done. I used the expressions like "learn to react/respond" instead of "understand". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Computer communication leads to Computer network, is there a benefit of using the {{main|}} template to direct readers to the main article for this subsection so they can learn more?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having reached the end of the article, it seems comprehensive with the caveat that this type of technical article isn't something I regularly interact with. It makes sense, if it is a little overwhelming at times. I have only evaluated it on the content as I can see Nikki has already done a source review and I am not familiar with image copyright. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darkwarriorblake: thanks for going out of your comfort zone to review this article and for your useful suggestions. I hope I was able to solve the main points. Please let me know if there are more things to address. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support based on content alone. FYI There are duplicate links for "intention" and "ethernet". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I took care of the duplicate links. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I wanted to ask whether I may start another nomination. This nomination was started 4 weeks ago. It has 3 supports and it has passed the image review and the source review. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two supports: My Cat and Dark Warrior. Where am I missing one? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I counted Khascall as a support since she states that the article passes the FA criteria. Please let me know if this is a misinterpretation on my side. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you did that, it seems a reasonable assumption. I have left a note on her talk page inviting the removal of any residual doubt, so let us pause a little and see what happens. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can start a second nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • History: given "Communication history studies how communicative processes evolved" might it be appropriate to preface "In early societies, spoken language was the primary form of communication" with the estimated time[s] that verbal, pictorial and written communications are thought to have originated? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are good idea. I added a short explanation of the emergence of language and included a sentence on when people started using pictograms. The emergence of more complex writing systems already has a date. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is 40,000 the consensus of the specialist scholars?
There is no clean-cut consensus on the emergence of language. If we have to give one number, then 40,000 is probably the best choice. This is reflected by the formulation "According to some scientific estimates".
The first cave paintings came earlier than the pictograms used in ancient civilizations but it's not clear to what extent they should be understood as forms of communication. Both they and body decoration could be mentioned but I don't think it's essential and the article is already quite long. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not a clear cut consensus it is normal to briefly present the various points of view. So, maybe 'According to some scientific estimates, language developed around 40,000 years ago, although others consider it to be much older' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Communication/archive1&oldid=1183065601"