User:Bua327/Social Penetration Theory/Meghanaskinner 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? Bua327
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bua327/Social Penetration Theory

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has some word changes and grammar fixes, but I cannot tell where my peer added new or useful information to the lead, additionally, sources from the original article were not transferred over to the sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but it was previously found in the article
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, Uncertainty reduction theory (a whole new section) and computer-mediated communication (added to this section) both add relevant information to the ideas of social penetration theory.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most sources are within the last nine years, so I am working under the assumption that the content is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the content added fits in nicely and does a good job at rounding out some other aspects related to social penetration theory
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would not consider this material to fall under equity gaps or to address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I would consider the content added neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not believe so
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not believe so
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not believe so

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most content is, it seems as my peer also added original content
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Most are within the last nine years
 * Check a few links. Do they work? T he ones with links do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well-written and concise and flows well with the content already there
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the added material is well organized

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I would consider this article to be more well-rounded and complete with my peer's additions
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added adds some context and substance to social penetration theory. By adding a section on uncertainty reduction theory, it helps add to the context of how interpersonal communication in relationships becomes more intimate over time. Additionally, the section on computer-mediated communication helps us to see one way in which these relationships develop. The material was well-written and fit into the article well.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding the computer-mediated section without adding other ways that relationships develop left me wanting more information. Adding more sections on the different ways relationships become more intimate, other than computer-mediated would improve this article.