Talk:Defensive communication

Brandon's Wikipedia Peer Review
Hi, Davis! I think you have accomplished some really great work with your article about defensive communication. Here are a few comments and suggestions pertaining to each of the five points for consideration.

Lead Section:
 * Your lead section does an excellent job of explaining the concept of defensive communication. It provides a clear and concise definition of the term and provides examples of scenarios where defensive communication is most commonly observed.
 * The lead section also adequately summarizes the main concepts presented in the article. Just by reading the lead, I felt I had a firm understanding of defensive communication. I also appreciate how you immediately started the article with the definition and examples, rather than beginning with unnecessary and broad introductory statements.
 * I did, however, find the lead section to be a little repetitive. There are a few times where the terms "perceived flaws/perceived threats" are repeated. It is possible you had intentions of providing more examples of the definition, such as personal attacks as personal threats; to the reader, it is a bit confusing so it might be helpful to adjust the wording a bit.
 * I would also suggest moving the information about Sigmund Freud's research to the "psychodynamic theory" section. I think it is worthwhile to mention him as the 'pseudo-father of the concept' in the lead section, but I believe specific details about his research with colleagues might fit better in the history section.

Structure:
 * I appreciate how you have created specific sections devoted to the development of defensive communication in social interactions, workplaces, and relationships. Since these are three distinct examples, it makes sense to separate them.
 * Overall, I believe the structure of your article works well. The one critique I have structure-wise is that you could consider separating the history section from the applications section. The article might flow more smoothly if the theories were explained, and then later the reader could see how those theories are applied in everyday situations.

Balanced Coverage:
 * Your article is well-balanced and contains substantial information for each section. I appreciate the supporting details you offer about how defensive communication is observed in relationships and in workplace environments.
 * While you presented the theory of leader-member exchange in the workplace, I might also consider explaining how researchers analyze exchanges between individual employees. Although you mention most defensive communication occurs on a manager/subordinate level, there are definitely scenarios between two or more people who are considered equals in the workplace. This can happen in particularly competitive work environments. How do researchers explain these types of interactions?
 * In the critique section, you highlight one of the central criticisms, which is flaws in the research from Gibb. Are there are any other criticisms out there? I would consider adding more in this section if possible.

Neutral Content:
 * Overall, I think your article is fair and balanced. You do not insert your opinions and I think your word choice is acceptable for all of the sections.
 * To comment on one sentence, I would look to the final one in the critique section. You suggest the need for more research to full understand the implications of defensive communication. Do any of your sources suggest this? I might use a reference here so it doesn't seem like your personal opinion.

Reliable Sources:
 * All of your sources are reliable and suitable for Wikipedia. I appreciate your use of several scholarly articles to back up your claim. I also found it exciting to see Dr. Becker cited in two of your sources!
 * If you did want to balance your article even more, you could incorporate some of your sources in multiple sections to further support your statements. For example, the only source in the section about Jack Gibb's theory is the actual article from Jack Gibb. Meanwhile, the defensiveness in the workplace section only cites the first source from Becker et al. I would try to mix these sources more so the reader knows multiple authors support these statements.

Other Comments:
 * I think the various images in your article make it more visually appealing to the reader. It is nice that you used more than one.
 * There are a few minor typos throughout the article, mainly in the lead section. In most cases, I was able to determine what points you were making, but I would just double-check for these.

Question Section:

1. The article does a great job of summarizing the concept of defensive communication and highlighting the theories and applications of the term. After reading the article, I feel like I have a firm grasp of how communication scholars and researchers have approached the topic. I even feel like I can pinpoint examples of defensive communication in my everyday life. I was impressed by the attention to theories Davis incorporated in the article. When researching a topic, especially in the communication field, it is easy to feel bogged down by the complex theories. Davis did a great job addressing each one in an easy-to-understand format. The first few sentences of the lead section stick out to me the most, since they are direct, yet all encompassing.

2. Regarding changes, I would suggest separating the history section from the applications section. The theories are one important concept, while the application of those theories is another. This would improve the article by helping make an important distinction between the two. Furthermore, I would suggest adding a sub-section about the leader-member exchange theory underneath the defensiveness in the workplace headline. As stated above, I would add more information about how defensive communication theories are applied to employee-employee interactions.

3. The most important thing Davis could do to improve the article would be to tighten up the lead section by moving the Sigmund Freud information into the history section. While I think it is worthwhile to include Freud in the introductory paragraph since he is a vital figure in defensive communication research, the majority of his theory would fit better in the history section. This would also add additional context to the psychodynamic theory paragraph that seems to simply just pick up where the introductory section left off. I think the psychodynamic theory paragraph would be better organized if it could stand alone.

4. I can certainly learn some techniques from this article to improve my own about hook-up culture. I like how clear and concise Davis' lead section is, and I plan to model mine more like this. I feel like my lead is more verbose and does not fully summarize all of the elements highlighted in my article. I will also reference Davis' critique section for assistance with my own critique paragraph. I was a bit stumped on how to attack my critique section, and I believe I should follow Davis' model of providing specific criticisms from scholars and researchers.

I did find two other scholarly sources about defensive communication that might be helpful for completing this Wikipedia article.

Baker, W.H. (1980). Defensiveness in Communication: Its Causes, Effects, and Cures. Journal of Business Communication, 17(3), 33-43. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1177/002194368001700304

Banghart, S., Guinn, T. D., Horan, S. M., (2015). Understanding Relationships Among the Dark Triad Personality Profile and Romantic Partners' Conflict Communication. Communication Quarterly, 63(2), 156-170. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1080/01463373.2015.1012220

Brand72093 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis
— Assignment last updated by Itz Paco1124 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)