User:DaltonSchultz/Strategic Choice Theory/CJMcKenna98 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)

User:DaltonSchultz


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:DaltonSchultz/Strategic Choice Theory

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
There is no lead. I think the article would greatly benefit from one. After reading it, I'm still not really sure what Strategic Choice Theory is or even what field it's applied in. I assume it has something to do with sociology, but that isn't mentioned anywhere.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

I believe so.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes. I assume much hasn't changed with the theory in the last 15 years.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

"The problems are listed in this reference." I strongly advise against this. It should not be in an article. Either write what the problems are, or remove the section about the problems with the studies.

Content evaluation
I can tell there's a lot in there that deserves to be there, such as the creators of the theory and some of how the theory is applied. I'm not sure in which cases it applies to or which industries it applies to. From what I can tell, strategic choice theory has something to do with how higher ups in a company make decisions, and how those decisions affect workers, but I'm not really sure what the goal of the theory is or how it's applied.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Most likely.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

If there is one, it doesn't appear biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

This doesn't seem to be an article about a controversial topic, so I doubt this is a problem that can happen.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall pretty good; unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

In the first section of the article there is a claim about why strategic source theory was created but no citation. "The model/theory made because any other theory in that time period, for industries, most other models were based on industries that were not changing." Unless the citation is a few lines later, this really seems to be something that needs a citation directly after it.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Probably.


 * Are the sources current?

They're likely as current as they can get. This theory seems to have been developed in the early 60's, so a source from 2005 is likely the most current source.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Pretty good, besides the one thing I mentioned. If that claim is referenced in the first source then that's a mistake on my part.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

This is the article's most prominent issue. There were multiple times in my reading where I wasn't sure what was said because of unclear language. For example what does "the relations of industries" mean exactly?

"A majority of the theories had been made when everything was relatively still" What does "still" mean?

Much of the language feels rough and doesn't flow well. It's an easy fix that only requires slight changes. For example "The model/theory made because any other theory in that time period, for industries, most other models were based on industries that were not changing." could be "The model/theory was created because other contemporary models/theories were anchored in industries that were stagnant" I know I prefer more poetic language, and this could just be my nitpicking, but I think the article could be greatly improved by improving it's flow like I believe I have. At least add in the words that are missing.

"These studies were mostly using the theory to study industries, but they did have problems in the study." You've used the word "study" too many times in one sentence. This can confuse others.

"The choice to use this strategic choice theory in industrial relations is contained by two things. The first is that the person making the decisions are only available to happen when they have direct control of what they do. This means that if the person who is making the decisions has to be able to decide freely." This section needs to be rewritten. "The choice to use strategic choice theory in industrial relations is caused by two things. The decision maker must be able to decide freely." Something like that. I tried with that second sentence but I have no idea what it means.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes. Some are minor, like in the sentence "Therefore, since the Industries were in rapid change there became a need to explain why the industries are changing." the "I" in "Industries" should not be capitalized. "are changing" should be "were changing".

There are multiple words that are missing in sentences. The "was" I added in "The model/theory made because any other theory in that time period, for industries, most other models were based on industries that were not changing." was missing.

"The basic model begins by factoring in purposive, intentionalist, rational explanations" should be "The basic model begins by factoring in purposive, intentionalist, and rational explanations".

"The variables included can be condensed to any forces outside the environment that would have an effect on the person making the choices." should be "The variables included can be condensed to any outside environmental force (or "any of the outside environmental forces" if you really want to use the word "forces") that would have an affect ("affect" is a verb so use that here. Alternatively, if you really want to use "effect" make the sentence "that would create an effect") on the person making the choices.

"The blooming of this theory has been given credit to a multitude of researchers" This sentence needs work. First "blooming" is a strange word, use spread, distribution, or proliferation if you wan't to be fancy. "has been given credit" should be is credited to, and lastly the word "multitude" implies a great many more than the three mentioned in the article. If there are many more, you should mention them. If not, use something else like "multiple" or just name the three guys in a row "credited to Alfred Chandler jr., J.S. Bain, and Michael Porter".


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes.

Organization evaluation
Sorry if I was too harsh. I know you finished this at 4am so you were probably just tired, I get it, but the article needs revision.

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
No pictures

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I honestly don't know. The original is similarly confusing and hard to read, so I can't say this is an improvement. It is greatly different from the original though.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

A lot more background information relating to the theory. The addition of those who helped create it is a great improvement.


 * How can the content added be improved?

In the ways I've already mentioned.

Overall evaluation
Y'know, If you're going to add your writings below the original article that would be a substantial improvement to the article. If that was your plan the whole time then I'm deeply sorry I didn't realize it until now. If that is what you're doing then good job. If you make the changes I've suggested then this article will be ready to be published. Good luck with your future revisions.