User:Dianevanderwal/Social information processing (theory)/Gjd001aquinas Peer Review

General info

 * You have great solutions for many sentences that need further clarification or citation. For example, your 3rd edit about the hyperpersonal perspective is an important clarification to the theory. The original article writes a confusing sentence that does not have to be. The hyperpersonal perspective is a big chunk of the theory! Lead Section The lead section looks like the way a lead section is supposed to look. It talks about the founder, The founders before the founder which I did not know. I question whether the “Forms of self” belongs in the Overview heading?  Structure  The structure is easy to comprehend, with clear headings and subheadings. It has a lead section, the article body consists of the principles and tenets of the theory.  I might delete “Academic integration.” I would arrange the “criticisms” heading to be last and the “New Technologies” heading somewhere else.  Balanced coverage  I find the original article to be mostly balanced. The heading, “Academic Integration” is a small paragraph with one source. I think this heading messes with the aesthetic appeal of the articles structure. I would suggest expanding on the topic, transferring it into another relevant heading, or deleting that section altogether.  Neutral Content  In your revision, number 1 mentions the word “obvious.” That descriptor seems biased or ambiguous. Maybe you want to replace obvious with “observable” or “visible.” You may already have an idea to replace or reword it. Other than that, the content appears neutral.  Reliable Sources  The biggest issue I see with the original article is reliable sources which looks like your work is addressing this issue already. The sources themselves seem to come from credible research. There are many citations that need further clarification. I found a few specific issues with sourcing and citations.  Under the “Assumptions” heading, there is a lot of sentences without citations. The Talk page suggests this edit too. It looks like this suggestion has not been completely resolved.  Under the “Experiment” subheading of the “Warranting” heading, the citation style changes from a Wikipedia page’s usual footnote. For example, After one of the sentences it uses “(Walther et al. 2008)” for a citation. I am not sure if you are allowed to use that format, but I think the citation style is supposed to be consistent.  I see that in the references list, our textbook is cited a couple of times. The issue is that it is the 7th and 8th edition. We are reading out of the 11th edition this semester. Perhaps you could find the same information in the 11th or updated research about that cited work.  What I think I need to adopt from your Wiki project is the revision of each “clarification needed” or “citation needed”. I know my article has a lot of these listed. I have been focusing mostly on the overall structure of my article and the relevancy of the information to the theory.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Greg, I completely agree about Forms of Self going in the lead section, I'm just not sure where else I should put it. Maybe as its own heading for its own section? Any ideas are appreciated.

I also agree about the academic interpretation section. While it does not exactly "take away" from the article, I don't really think it belongs. I will likely just delete it.

I will definitely be sweeping for words like "obviously" and replacing those with less bias terminology.

I appreciate your comments about the citations as well. It is super overwhelming seeing how many times (citation needed) or (clarification needed) is listed. I do agree though that it will help a lot to just grab similar edition's work from this current edition of the textbook. Plenty of the sources are super old as well, so I'll probably spend some time either deleting whatever information they cited, or try to find a more updated version.