User:Chrissusskin/Supportive communication/Sgilbreath 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? Chrissusskin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Chrissusskin/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The article "Supportive Communication" does not currently exist on Wikipedia; it is being created by Chris. Therefore, all content in the lead section has been newly created by him. I think the introductory sentence could be more concise. For example, the first several sentences describe situations or types of people who might benefit from supportive communication, but their is no clear definition of exactly what supportive communication is. The lead section briefly mentions that the idea of supportive communication dates to the 1980s, but there are no original sources referenced. There are only two sources referenced in the lead, and those date 2019 and 2017. I think an earlier source should be referenced in the lead section.

The lead does mention the article's sections: typologies and research. However, there is no further explanation of typologies. The placeholders for the typology sections are there, but they are empty. The lead section also mentions both verbal and nonverbal supportive communication strategies, but there is no other mention of these in the article. Summarizing the different typologies would be a lengthy task, but it might be easier to add sections to the article describing examples of verbal vs. nonverbal supportive strategies. The lead is not too detailed. It is of appropriate length. I believe the definition of supportive communication might benefit from additional clarity.

Overall, the lead is constructed very nicely. It doesn't use a lot of technical jargon that I could never hope to understand. Everything is written in a simple, straightforward manner.

Also, since I'm an English teacher, I did do some editing just for grammar and punctuation. I looked at the rubric for peer reviews and thought we were supposed to. I apologize if I misunderstood. I didn't change any of the content, only some punctuation and/or grammar.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
All of the content added is relevant to the topic and interesting to read. The article does not ramble; it is very incisive and clear. As I mentioned in the lead review, I believe the article could benefit from added sections on verbal vs. nonverbal supportive communication strategies. The content is up-to-date. The sources referenced generally range in date from 2017-2019, with one source dating to 1986. The section titled "Research Studies" could be misleading for readers, though. It might be more appropriately labeled "Supportive Communication in Online Environments" or something to indicate that this section solely addresses online support and cyber bullying. This could be a subsection under "Research Studies." Someone adding to this article in future might examine face to face social support strategies. I think addressing online aspects of social support is an incredibly relevant topic of study for today's society.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is absolutely objective in tone. It is impossible to tell the author's leanings concerning any of the content. He takes a neutral position in reporting research and does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor any position over another. The content in the "Research" section appears balanced and varied with different sources. The "Lead" section may be a bit unbalanced. I say this because their are three citations for Dr. Pederson, who is the instructor for this class. I was not sure if that was a conflict of interest. Regardless, it may be better also to use literature that is dated earlier since the concept of supportive communication has been around for a long while.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
In the reference section, all of the links work and link to the appropriate articles. The articles appear to be from peer reviewed, scholarly sources. The author does a good job of choosing sources that work for the article and that are relevant. It is difficult to say that the sources reflect all of the available literature on the topic. Because this is a growing topic of interest, there are many more sources on the topic, with a variety of ideas and applications included. It would be impossible to present the full variety of literature available within a project like this one where only five sources are needed. I do think the author provided solid, relevant articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is very well-written. It is incisive and easy to read. It does not contain unnecessary technical jargon, which would confuse and frustrate the majority of readers. The content is written to be easily accessible to a variety of readers, as a good encyclopedia should be. The content is divided into sections that make sense. I believe the section titled "Research Studies" should be renamed in such a way that it better reflects the content of the research in that section: online communication. There were a few grammatical errors or errors in punctuation, which I have edited.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images included in the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Just from Googling Supportive Communication and searching the subject in academic research databases, I was able to see that it is an ever-growing area of study and deserves its own category. The list of sources is not exhaustive, but then, they couldn't be for the scope of this assignment. That would take much longer than a few weeks of research and preparation. There is more than enough literature available to add to the article in the future. The article is nicely laid-out for clarity, and it does contain the usual sections and sub-sections for content. There is a blue box for the "Contents" section. This article links to three others: "Social Capital," "Social Support," and "Cyber-Bullying."

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?

Overall evaluation
Because the article is newly created, yes, the article is more complete. It has been created in such a way that it will be easy for the author or another to add seamlessly to the current content. The main contribution of the article so far, online supportive communication, is meaningful and relevant in today's society. This social relevance is an important strength in the article. The lead section can be improved by offering a clearer definition of Supportive Communication. The current content could be improved by adding detail about exactly how support strategies are used on social media. The article mentions that social media platforms are places where individuals seek supportive communication, but it does not address what those ways might be or how support is offered by others.