Talk:Narrative paradigm

message: Interesting article: is the 'Evaluation' section POV? Infilms 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was in the trade, I did not meet many people who were prepared to defend this hypothesis so, as I wrote this, I admit I probably adopted the majority view that it is deficient. If you would like to defend it, feel free to provide the balancing neutrality.David91 10:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to present the evaluation of the scholarly community, not your own personal view - this is what POV is all about. You need to cite sources. PiCo 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.David91 10:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article title uses a lower-case initial p, but the phrase is repeatedly capitalized in the article.  Which is right? Michael Hardy 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital or lower case? 

message: Hi, Megan! I think you did a good job. Your Wikipedia page on Narrative Paradigm is easy to understand for a nonacademic reader. Compared to the theory illustrated in our textbook, the Wikipedia page explains better in some points. In the logic of good reasons part, instead of proposing two series of five questions as explained by our textbook, you use five criteria and five issues centered to talk about this concept, which is clearer and helps the reader to understand rather than generalizing the ideas themselves. You also involved some deeper research about the narrative paradigm. The situation model talks about the essence of narrative paradigm, it explains the underlying reasons that people comprehend stories. 
I also have some suggestions to the page. First, it may seem clearer if adding subtitles for “Coherence, Fidelity, The logic of good reasons”. Since they are the basis of narrative rationality. Adding subtitles will help readers better seize the key points in a quick glance. Second, I think the three types of coherence is missing in the Wikipedia page. Adding this concept to the theory will help complete the explanation of coherence, making the theory fully understood by the reader. Xingjiaxi (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Hi Megan! Great job on editing this page! I think the content of the page right now is very thorough with all the key concepts and principles of Narrative Paradigm included. I think the current structure is much more clear and simplified compared to the previous version. Also I think the changes you made about rewording some of the phrases used are very necessary.
Here are some of my suggestions for your page: as for the narrative rationality section, I think it will be clearer if you divide it into three parts—coherence, fidelity and the logic of good reason, and use different headings as titles. Also, I think you could probably add some links of the key terms in the “Situation Models” section and the “Evaluation” section for better understanding of the audiences.
Henan Hs726 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Hi User:Nsaa - I wanted to clarify that I am editing this page for a school assignment. Is there a reason why my edits were revoked? Thanks! 
Mb1809 (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:Mb1809. My fault. I've undone my edit. Happy editing. Thanks for asking. Nsaa (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits revoked?

message: This example adds nothing to the article, the way it is written does not help the reader understand the content. I'm sure there are hundreds of better examples that may not be construed as political. VVikingTalkEdits 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick Cheney Example 

message: This is a very interesting communication theory. I really like your changes. Here are my suggestions: 
In the first part, there is the last sentence:  Fisher believes that all forms of communication that appeal to our reason are best viewed as stories shaped by history, culture, and character. Nevertheless, the narrative paradigm may be conceptually coined "the narratistic attitude" when it is presented as diametrically opposed to Wittgenstein's conceptual phrase "the theoretical attitude."
We haven't been told who Wittgenstein is and it would be helpful to understand what theoretical attitude is. We have learned what narratistic is from the earlier descriptions but when comparing to another attitude, it would be nice to define both of them. 
Again, this is just a suggestion but in the section Narrative Paradigm VS Rational World Paradigm, quickly define what logos and mythos are originally. Even though there are links to the different terms on wikipedia, most people wont keep clicking to learn information. Therefore, have simple quick facts all in one page. If they want to learn more, they can click to get more information. 
I do really like how simple the format is, the numbering system and short paragraphs. We discussed in class that these Wikipedia pages are for everyday users, not academics so there is a challenge to educate with right facts in a simple pace. You did a really good job with that. 
I agree with your reasoning of how you restructured the page. The flow is great, getting the information we need in a succinct order. Then especially in the end, we can learn of other relatable theories. Great job, Leyi informing on Narrative Paradigm for people from all different knowledge backgrounds on the theory!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj180 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: tj180's feedback to 2016 Fall Peer Review

message: Hi Leyi! I think your editing is really helpful and distinctive the page looks much better than it was! I love your changes on the comparison of narrative and rational world paradigm. The updated structure also makes the page very clear. I think the current structure is perfect.
Maybe you can add more in the evaluation and application parts because they so far seem not that filled. You can try to find some research and studies in applying the theory into practice and put them into the application to better demonstrate the theory. And for evaluation, if there is no other section in that, maybe leaving the criticism part alone will be nice. Hope that helps and good luck!
Yy362 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Young  

message: Thanks Leyi! The new structure of the article looks concise and clear. However, I suggest that you'd better separate the very first sentence of your article "The Narrative Paradigm is a theory proposed by 20th-century philosopher Walter Fisher that all meaningful communication is a form of storytelling or giving a report of events (see narrative)." into two sentences. Because the current one include too much information, which may confuse those who first read the theory. I love the introduction part. It gives us a general picture of the Narrative Paradigm. 
Secondly, I think the comparison between Narrative Paradigm and Rational World Paradigm is useful. My suggestion is that maybe a short transitional or introduction paragraph/sentence concerning Rational World Paradigm should be added. Because now when you start the section with "In the rational world paradigm,logos as reason and mythos as story and emotion.", it seems that the Rational World Paradigm comes out of no where. We are Communication Major student, so we now the logic and relations among all the theories, but our audience maybe an absolutely laymen. Or, I think, in the comparison section, you could put the Narrative Paradigm part first, and then move on to the Rational World Paradigm. It would be more logical and easy to understand in this way, because your article is about Narrative Paradigm, it's better Narrative Paradigm goes first.
You did a great job on the "Narrative Paradigm" section. I don't think it is necessary for further revise.
It is great idea to bridges the academic to the real world. Personally, I think if you can find good examples to match each category, the Narrative and Politics; and the Narrative and Health Communication, it is better to delete the two sub-titles, and just leave the content there. At least, it would make your page look better. As a reader, for me, I usually expect a short and general introduction part followed by sub-sections in detail. It seems that the current Application part has a really long introduction, while the two subsections are too short. 
Hope my suggestion could help.
Good luck with your Wikipedia project.
Meng Li  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ml1462 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ML1462 feedback to 2016 Fall Peer Review 

message: Great great  job, Leyi! I think you spent a great effort to improve the page. The change you made to the structure is perfect. The sections are arranged in a way with clear logic and relevance to the conjunctive parts. It is smart to move the related theory to the last part of the page, since the major function of this section should only be introducing the related ideas for readers to explore more. It is not the focus of the page. It is nice to include quotes from the founder of the theory to support the illustrated ideas. The comparison between Narrative Paradigm and Rational World Paradigm make it much more easier to distinguish the difference between two paradigms, which could be confusing to readers encountering the paradigm for the first time. Additionally, I like the idea to add subtitles to categorize real life examples under the Application section. With the subtitles, the readers can navigate through the applications they are most interested in easily. If you have time, you may consider about spending some time on the Narrative and Branding/Advertising application, which is a dynamic and interesting field we encounter with in daily life, creating a new subsections to illustrates those ideas. I am fascinated by the idea of being the bridge between the academic and the real world. I am really looking forward to reading more about the applications when coming back to visit this page later! 
Yc609 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from YinYing 

message: To preface, just for clarity's sake at the bottom of this wall of peer reviews, I'm not a Georgetown student. Having discovered the Wiki Ed project by way of this article, I have to say, knowing that the Wiki Ed project was involved in this article puts its style into perspective. In sum: it reads like student writing. This is a complicated judgment call, but I feel that the tone of the article is inconsistent with that of surrounding articles. This may chiefly be a product of the article having had a single principal editor for a semester.
As an aside, this is a system I find more than a little worrisome. Is there any reason to believe an assigned student editor will continue to maintain the article after their semester has ended? Going by the page's history, it doesn't seem to have been the case so far. And what use is peer review? The wall above this is little more than uncritical sycophancy, students unwilling to seriously address flaws in the article, either because they wish to maintain their friendship with the author, or because they fear that dissent will lead to a poor grade, or because classtime strictly limits how much effort they can put into a review. In fact, some of the advice given runs directly contrary to Wikipedia's standards. It's not "perfect" (not that any article in a living encyclopedia can be).
But now back to task. In greater detail, the issues that stand out to me in this article include the great frequency of sentence fragments and agrammatical sentences, some of which may be left over from outlining but others of which are more problematic because their intended meaning is obscure; the use of bulleted lists and simplistic compare-and-contrast tables where a more skilled author might use prose; the way these lists and tables are insufficiently introduced and followed up; the large, undifferentiated list of references which, despite its appearance, cannot be said to be thorough until inline citations are provided; the inappropriate use of first person pronouns and improper tense, a distinct indicator of student writing; a marked overreliance on conjunctive adverbs (e.g. "However," "In contrast," "Thus,") and sentences which use this structure, also a distinct indicator of student writing; the inappropriate use of colons and slashes within sentences; and a debt of hyperlinks. I can't comment on the author's treatment of the subject matter (Fisher seems like a reactionary to me, but that's not an issue of article style), but it does appear competently addressed. It's simply issues of tone and style. 
This article needs attention from someone who's not a student, and someone who's not a gnome with bad WiFi like me. Shmuser (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-student editor, I have begun working on basic copy-editing, but would appreciate further help. Let me know if anyone would like to collaborate on this article, as I'm rather green to be spearheading a cleanup effort.Ontheroad1957 (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs cleanup by a non-student 

message: This page has a really approachable and concise introduction to help the readers to quickly grasp the core idea of Narrative Paradigm. It could be nice to add some diagrams and graphs onto the page to make this page more visual. As you may have probably noticed, please go through some of the issues that the header indicated! :D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentinaaaaal (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review - Comm Theory 752 

message: Hello!
Your goals for this page look spot on and will already go a long way toward improving this page! The introduction is easy to understand and presents the important points necessary for this theory. The copy editing you mention is definitely an issue, especially for the "Coherence" section, but it looks like you're already working to improve wording issues, etc throughout the page, so I am sure you have that well in hand.
It looks like the applications section is a little sparse, so your plan to add to that will be very useful as well.
There are a couple things on the page that might be clearer if things were rearranged or connected more explicitly. First, while I really like the comparison table under "Rational world paradigm," that whole section feels a little disconnected--it needs some context. It might make sense to rearrange the sections so that "Rational world paradigm" and "Evaluation of reasoning systems" were combined or placed next to one another. I think this would help the reader make sense of the significance of the contrast between these two ideas.
Another thing that seems a little disconnected is the section on "Situational models." I think it would be helpful to note exactly how it is connected to narrative paradigm (is it inspired by narrative paradigm, is it a completely different theory or part of the same, ? etc). 
Finally, if you are looking to expand anything else, some of the criticisms could use an extra sentence or two to clarify exactly what the criticism/disagreement is.
As I said, it looks like your goals for the page and the edits you've made so far will really help clean up and expand this page! If you are able to get these goals taken care of, then rearranging or adding context as I mentioned above might be the next step in making the theory a little more clear and coherent (but I am sure you will make whatever changes are necessary based on your more extensive knowledge and understanding of the theory).
CollEKim (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review by Colleen 

message: — Assignment last updated by ZIB0713 (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory