User:Alasap412/Expectancy Violations Theory/Aen4662066 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Alasap412
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Expectancy violations theory

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I don't see any published edits from my peer at this time, based on the current edit history.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Definitely, although when we begin making changes, I do think that Alasap412 could expand on it just a bit.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not quite missing, but what I would recommend to my peer is to expand upon the following sections: 1) Threat threshold 2) Metatheoretical assumptions 3) Critique. I would recommend for Threat threshold to add examples and expand on the section. For Metatheoretical assumptions, updates could be used by the section "Axiological assumptions," and lastly, I would expand on the Critique section as Wikipedia stresses unbiased work.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I see very little and this could be a new good section!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, but by adding to the Critique section, you could definitely see more.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I am aware of.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I couldn't really tell that there was anything that necessarily directed the position of the author in one way or the other, which is a good thing when trying to stay objective!
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I haven't seen any changes made yet, as far as the edit history of the Wikipedia page goes.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I am not sure of the background of the authors thus far, but I will say most of the sources appear to be purely academic. It may help to diversify them.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? What I checked works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Definitely.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I would highly recommend adding more informative images.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?