Talk:Tie signs

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Created article evaluation section 18:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Chose relational frame/framing theory for Wiki article assignment 18:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Source list for consideration below (see also Sandbox User page for more detailed listing of potential sources, links, etc.):

Manwatching by Morris

The Waxing and Waning of Relational Intimacy... by Guerrero & Andersen

The use and interpretation of tie signs in a public setting by Afifi & Johnson

Relations in public by Goffman

Computers in Human Behavior by Sosik & Bazarova

Handbook of Personal Relationships by Duck

Couple ti-signs and interpersonal threat by Fine, Stitt, and Finch

Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships by Wright and Webb

Behavior of lovers by Maxwell 18:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Goffman photo
Sent following message to Marchjuly and replaced Goffman photo:

Hi - you removed a photo of Erving Goffman from Tie Signs article. The photo was retrieved through Wiki media tab and labeled as "fair use." It is also the same photo that is used on Goffman's main article page. I have returned the photo to the Tie Signs page. Please let me know if it needs to be removed. Thanks. 14:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded to you at my user talk. Image use in general can be a bit tricky on Wikipedia, but non-free image use even more so. The non-free use of the Goffman photo in this article doesn't comply with WP:NFCC, so it has been removed again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
1.Does the introduction section in the entry provide you with a basic knowledge of the theory or concept? What could be improved in this section?

The introduction was spot on from my perspective. It illustrated what tie signs are, examples of interactions with them and much more. For example, I really liked the example you gave of PDA. For people who don’t know what that entails, you also hyperlinked it to make it clear to the audience and to show the importance of the subject. You listed different ways as well as what PDA included in your article. This helped because you gave the reader the opportunity to click on the link after they concluded your paragraph. Great job! You did a great job on adding references on how the tie signs stem from the participants, as well as outsiders. From reading your introduction, I can clearly anticipate what the rest of the article will be about. 2.What are the strengths of the content sections? Talk about the organization, flow, and what you learned from these sections.

A strength that came from your contents sections came from the “usage” section. I found this to be very informative and easily read. When you start to read the usage section, you immediately get introduced to how tie signs are used and who tie signs are directed towards. The organization of this section flows very well. Meaning, I wasn’t lost or confused while reading it. You connected this section to your introduction in a very good manner. You talked more about relational couples that connected to PDA from your introduction and allowed the reader to fully understand that tie signs are focused more towards couples rather than individuals. Another strength you had was adding the picture next to the usage section. This illustrated a great example of what you were talking about in the section and overall meaning of what tie signs are. I also liked how you incorporated tie signs with social media. I felt that this is a big topic and very important to know. You described how social media has changed the way of tie signs because it is more digital rather than personal. You gave examples of instead of “hugging, holding hands, etc.” on social media, you are “liking’, which takes the place of affection. Again, great job.

I learned that having graphics, along with definitions of what your topic entails, is a great way to get the reader’s attention. It displays exactly what you want to portray and you had shorter, easier sentences to make learning about tie signs very simple. 3.What are the weaknesses in the content sections? What can the author do to improve these sections? Make sure to offer specific sections. A weakness I noticed was your background section. I understand that this is supposed to be very short and just give you the background of what you will be talking about. However, my suggestion would be to just add a little more to the ending of your statement. You end with a quote from one of the founders of the theory or term and maybe you could just give a little more background of that founder since you talk more about him later. Again, this is very minor. Your project is very well written and organized. It’s hard to point out weaknesses when I didn’t find anything to critique on. Your paper is very organized with a lot of information that is useful for anyone trying to find information on tie signs.

4.Does the “application” section make sense? What is lacking and how can it be improved? Your application section is where most of the information lies. You thoroughly depict and illustrate each researcher you are talking about. You had a total of six examples of researcher who have applied the theory of tie signs. In each of those six examples, you provided numerous details on how they applied their research on this topic. For example, I particularly liked the section about Goffman. In this section, you illustrate the ways in which he broke down tie signs. You listed rituals, markers, and change signals. I found this to be the strongest part of the applications section because you identified exactly what the research was processing when studying tie signs. You also did a great job on adding few quotations throughout this section but still managed to get the point across of how each researched applied this theory.

5.Does the “critique” section offer a substantive critique of the theory or concept? What suggestions do you have to improve this section? From my standpoint, I found the critique section to be very good. However, a suggestion I would make would be to elaborate more on Goffman and what he means by tie signs are focused on Western society most of the time and to middle class Americans. If you could just add a reason as to why, this might make a little bit more sense to someone, like me, who doesn’t know much about your topic. I like how you ended this section with future research on tie signs in social media. Again. My only suggestion to make this section stronger would be to add another reference on how tie signs are already changing through social media. It might be helpful to readers who want to know more about that side of this theory.

6.Discuss any issues with grammar, sentence structure, or other writing conventions.

I didn’t find any issues on grammar. I found that everything was correctly spelled and maintained a well sentence structure. Like I stated previously, your sentence and paragraph structure had great organization. It was very easy to follow and sentences were short and easily read. The only thing that I noticed was in the critique sentence you forgot to add the word “most” in the first sentence about Goffman in his quote. Overall, you did a great job on this project and if you have any questions about anything I wrote, feel free to ask! Aniuni (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review of Hyperpersonal Theory
Hi,

I just wanted to thank you for your detailed peer review of my article. It helped so much and I was able to go back through and make corrections, make my article more detailed, and move around different sections to make the article flow better. Again, thank you so much. I really needed the feedback! Aniuni (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)