User:Cokelley710/Identity management theory/Paigebrinkley 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?
 * cokelly10
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Cokelley710/Identity management theory

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, there was a lot of information added in this section, specifically about the tenets of the theory.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is concise, but only describes that Identity Management Theory is an intercultural communication theory from the 1990s. A more specific description of IMT in the introductory sentence may help reader's grasp the concept better.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There are some descriptions of the content of the theory and the background that are featured in the article's major sections. Including a brief sentence describing the application of IMT and the critiques of IMT in your lead section would improve the overall cohesiveness of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information is present throughout the article in other major sections, mainly in the content sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is generally precise. In the second paragraph, the third sentence could be removed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All content that was added is relevant and necessary information for understanding the concept of IMT. All additions pertain to the content of the theory, its applications or its critiques.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All content that was added was from sources from generally from the last 15 years, except for one source. So, the content is fairly up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The section of critiques could be elaborated on by including specific examples of studies that critique the lack of research done using IMT.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content that was added is presented in an academic tone, and is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The added content is purely informative, and has an academic tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The critique of Identity Management Theory is underrepresented. Elaborating on that section could give the reader a broader understanding of the concept.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the added content is factual and academic. The inclusion of more information about the critiques of Identity Management Theory, however, could be beneficial to the understanding of the concept as a whole.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the new content is backed up by academic journals or another academic source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most out-of-date source is from 1993. The other sources, however, are from within the past 15 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * None of the references have links. Adding this could allow readers to learn more about Identity Management Theory.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content that was added was well-written. Specifically, the descriptions of the stages of intercultural relationships were very clear and the application major section was very well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were a few typos but no glaring grammatical errors. The 6th sentence in the first paragraph of the lead section has a small typo ("f" instead of of).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is generally well organized. Something that may improve the organization, however, is condensing the sections of "face and facework" and "face problematics" into one major section.

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

There was no images or media added to this article.


 * 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?

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?
 * The article is more complete because of the added content. The added content elaborates on the framework and tenets of Identity Management Theory, adds information on application and critiques, and deleted unnecessary and confusing sentences.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The Application Section was well-written, thorough and organized. This section was not included in the original article at all, and the inclusion of it improves the quality of the article. Furthermore, the explanation and elaboration of the face problematic section and stages of the intercultural relationships will help to clarify reader's understanding of the concept. The academic tone and scholarly sources also add to the credibility of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There were some minor typos in the content section. Furthermore, elaborating on the critique section by citing additional studies that critique IMT could help improve the article. Condensing the sections of "face and facework" and "face problematics" into one section could help the organization of the article. Linking the references in the article could help readers learn more about the subject and start their own research, and more sources could add to the depth of the page. The inclusion of a picture or media file could make the page more visually appealing and help with comprehension.