User:Bua327/Social Penetration Theory/Mmallen3 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
Lead evaluation

The lead has not been updated to include all of the new content that was written. I believe it was kept from the original published Wikipedia Article. It is a good summary of the article and is not too wordy. I think it gives a nice overview of Social Penetration Theory, but could touch on a few of the topics that are discussed in the body of the wiki article such as, Computer-mediated communication and Uncertainty Reduction Theory. The lead does not seem overly detailed to me. The intro sentence clearly describes Social Penetration Theory in a concise way.

Content evaluation
The content added to the article was relevant to the topic of Social Penetration Theory. The research that was added from Yum and Hara added some content that was beneficial to better understanding the topic. Under the Computer-mediated communication section, the user should add who the theorists are after saying "Some theorists find this concept impossible...." Adding a source will prove their point better and make it sound less like an assumption. No content seemed out of place or like it did not belong. The "barriers" section stated "Several factors can affect the amount of self-disclosure between partners: gender, race, religion, personality, social status and ethnic background. Americans friends tend to discuss intimate topics with each other, whereas Japanese friends are more likely to discuss superficial topics." The discussion of people of Japanese decent relates to a historically underrepresented population. Overall, I think the content flowed well.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that the user added was much more concise, neutral, and easier to read. The original piece was overwhelming and was too long. The Uncertainty Reduction Theory section could have more information and not so much copy and paste from the source. More paraphrasing will go a long way under this section. I also think the "social exchange theory" section could have some more information to help the readers better understand the theory as a whole. Maybe some research that has been conducted would be a nice addition to this section? The content added does not persuade the reader in favor of one position over another. It is a neutral piece.

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is all backed up except for "Some theorists find this concept impossible...." under the Computer-mediated section, as I stated above. One source is from 1979, and everything else if from the last 20 years or so. Majority of the sources are from the last 10 years. All of the links work and are from a diverse spectrum of authors. An additional scholarly source that you could consider is: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social_penetration.htm. I found this source and found it to dive into the stages of the Social Penetration Theory well. Maybe you could add a section for the stages? The original article went into the stages, but it was wordy and not easy to follow. Cleaning up that section, if you choose to keep it, would be a nice addition to your article.

Organization evaluation
The content is well written and easy to read, especially compared to the original piece. There are no spelling or grammer errors, from what I could see. The content is well organized and is broken into major points of the topic. I would suggest changing this sentence from the social exchange theory section, "When there are positive interactions that produce good reward/cost calculations, the relationship is likely to be more satisfying. " I think it could be worded differently to flow better.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added improved the overall quality of the article. The article is more organized and sounds more complete. I think adding more information and research under the two theories listed will help make the article better. Paraphrasing under the heavily pasted sections will help too.