User:Genmarie/Social exchange theory/Pearcebarr 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)
 * Genmarie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Genmarie/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it delves further into the idea of cost and rewards, adds the concept of relational communication, and states the main thesis of the argument to aid in understanding.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it delves further into the idea of a cost benefit analysis by adding the information of it being economic, and adds the relational communication information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it spends a lot of time addressing cost benefit analysis, but doesn't do much else to show what else is in the article. While it does say that there is literature in communication, sociology, and psychology, it doesn't add information concerning assumptions, theoretical work, proponents of the theory, and so on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information that is present is embodied elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The sentence "The costs are aspects of the relationship that have negative effects on person A, such as giving up their time to help person B when they have other things they need to do. Rewards are aspects of the relationship that are beneficial to person A, such as having person B use their time to help them" may be overly detailed. If information is added to allude to other sections, this part could be removed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. For example:
 * In the history section, the larger picture of the history of the topic is painted out, and in a much more concise way. Certain words, such as unreciprocated, are added throughout the article which add to specificity. The addition of the social support section helps flesh out the topic more.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, to the best of my knowledge. The majority of citations seem to be from the 21st century, and those that are more outdated provide still topical information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It seems as though all information belongs to the article, and nothing seems to be missing from it.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. Most added information is in regards to history, applications, or theory which is all neutral. When things could become biased, the article stays neutral as well.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, no statements like that could be found. The emphasis of the benefit analyses could come off as biased towards that position because of the extra information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Cost benefit analysis is the only one that could be, but it is not too much of an issue.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No hint of direct persuasion could be found.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. All added information has citations if appropriate. There is large areas of text that, while have citations, all use the same citation. This is evident in the comparison levels section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * After checking a number of the sources in the references section, they all seem to link to reputable journal articles that are concerned with the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, yes. There are few sources that are 25-30 years old, but that seems to be the oldest.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes all the links I checked went to the correct website.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. All text that adjusted the previous article makes the information easier to understand, and new information is concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None were found
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Part of the adjustments made were organization to help with the flow of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no pictures added
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes. The article is easier to read, and is complete to the literature surrounding the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The organizational changes allow for the article to be shorter, but still make the same amount of sense. The history section, also, is a much easier to read account of the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The lead could have more information alluding to what is going to be coming up later in the article. Also, the criticism section could have a little more information in it. Compared to the rest of the article, it is small.