Talk:Communication studies

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 9 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Towers85.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sundance20, KamanaMS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 14 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ed.osterberger. Peer reviewers: HaydenD1010, EditsByDave, Bugcruncher.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): COzborne. Peer reviewers: Liyahyow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikihustle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed section: The political economy of Communication

As it seems that political economy is only mentioned in the wiki page on media studies but not communication studies, should it be expected that I write my proposed subsection, "The political economy of communication" (which is more tuned toward mass communication), under media studies and not communication studies, then? Thoughts? Sta90 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "The political economy of communication," is an important topic to add to this article. I did not see this section added to the article. I will research more on this topic to add this section. Vasquezmedia

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vasquezmedia/Evaluate_an_Article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasquezmedia (talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 

Proposed revision of "Other Names" Section

I believe it is important that this wiki makes the distinction between "Communication Studies" and "Communications Studies". Scholars within the field define communication as A systemic process in which people interact with and through symbols to create and interpret meanings. They define Communications as the technology used to facilitate the process of communication. Therefore, "Communications" should be removed from "other names" and a section defining these differences should be created so that the terminology can be properly defined and used. I will include academic sources when creating these sections. GerlachBP (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed section: Geographical Educational Programs in Communication Studies

I found it interesting that only Hong Kong's program was noted here. It would be interesting to be a theme and include other geographical programs as well? Thoughts? Clarebrady (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sections Vague

I found each section to be vague and needed more elaboration. There's an abundance of information on Communication studies where each sub-topic could include more information. It would be great to have a section about various theories in communication and to speak of some of the scholars' findings related to this topic. Paddyiranmanesh (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I also think that including information about what professional associations are would be helpful instead of listing out organizations. Maybe consider changing the heading of scopes and topics as it is unclear to me what that headline means for the information in the body section of the article. Elizabethrudman (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Needs More Research

Name of Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_studies from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_disciplines

I have chosen to evaluate this article since I am focusing academically and professionally in communications studies. It will be interesting to see what other users have posted about com studies and fact check what sources are being used.

The lead included, basic information about communication studies in terms of the common types of communication and contextual usage. It doesn't particularly mention major sections of the article. In the lead it talks about basic facts of the study. Then in the actual article, it talks about solely how we study communications in the U.S. vs, how other study it in Canada. It is also unclear why this comparison was used and why just these two countries. The lead is concise but does not support the content below it as much as it should. The content below the lead lacked the detail about the lead.

The content to the article is relevant to some degree, but doesn't get mentioned in the lead. The information is up to date. The country comparison in some cases might not belong initially, but it's an interesting comparison to keep. The content misses unpacking the lead's key points. The overall article could be improved, its extremely short and lacks more details.

The article feels neutral. It might feel one way or another when people read the comparisons of countries, but the remaining pieces are neutral. No claims appear too biased since it generally is lacking depth. Most of it is underrepresented and could be unpacked further. It didn't feel like the author was trying to make any persuasions, but reinforce the general concepts and break down of com studies and where and how it is studied in the U.S. and Canada and in recent publications.

I would argue the statements made are backed up with reliable sources at the bottom. And any quick facts were hyperlinked to define them or generalize them. There could be more facts to explain the history and scope, but since it is such a short article, there are not as many sources cited. Other institutions are cited at the bottom for further research since they conduct work on com studies. The sources are thorough and current, and can be looked up through their DOI's. The links were successful on my end.

There are no images to enhance the understanding of the topic. Respondents say that this article is vague and needs more inclusion of other definitions and countries that study communications. It is not in Wiki-projects. From the way we talked about the wiki in class, this article might be too short to be considered sufficient since this is also lacking more detail and citations, and even pictures or charts.

The overall status of this article is somewhat unfinished. It is published, but it severely lacking more information. The strengths of this article do a great job explaining the surface layer of com studies but the improvements can be made at further unpacking this material. It would have been interesting to see the different types and versions of the study and with supported examples in a bigger amount. It isn't that complete- it feels poorly developed. Amb549 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Communication studies I have chosen this article to evaluate because it relates to my undergraduate studies. The lead includes information about communication theorists which is not discussed in the body of the article. The article is not concise; the definition is too detailed.

The article talks about the history of communication studies, academic disciplines, and professional associations. The article includes a section about the communication studies in the United States and Canada but does not include any citations regarding the information about Canada. The latest citation is from 2014 so there could be more information on communication studies currently. I would say the "scope and topics" section is an unclear heading and does not accurately present the information within it.

Article neutral- My only concern is that it is biased towards the U.S. and Canada since it includes information about communication studies there, and no where else in the world. It sends the message that communication studies is more important than anywhere else. The claims regarding Canada do not include any citations.

Organization

I would say the article is not the easiest to read as the information is not concise. The only section does not make sense is the "scope and topics" section. I don't really understand what the author is trying to present based on that headline.

Article's overall status? The article needs help with citations and does not represent a worldwide view of the topic. It includes information about the topic's history and provides examples as to how communication studies applies to professional settings. The article can explain what professional associations are, include more up-to-date citations, and perhaps include more information about other countries' communication studies. The article is underdeveloped because it is lacking citations and information that would useful to understand the full scope of communication studies. Elizabethrudman (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Link to feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Elizabethrudman/Evaluate_an_Article&action=edit&section=1

The links I chose worked but I feel that since the some of the references are dated, there needs to be some careful evaluation of their validity and relevance — Sknk4172 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC) User:Sknk4172 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2020 (PST)

Article evaluation

Because my undergraduate major is communication science and sociology, so I choose this article to evaluate.

I think the introduction is a little typeset and difficult for the reader to understand. And it doesn't seem to be related to the subject. Beyond that, its communications research includes only the United States and Canada, giving the impression that the positions are more in favor of those two countries.

我觉得这篇文章的整体布局有点不清楚，资料也太繁琐，难以阅读。W13352466 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)