User:Kjk114211/Uncertainty reduction theory/Jnn019 Peer Review

General info
KarsonKester, Kjk114211
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kjk114211/Uncertainty reduction theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Uncertainty reduction theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
KarsonKester

Lead

The addition to the lead did a great job of adding further explanation to this article. The new parts of the lead were added in a way that it seems to flow with the original content. The addition to the lead section does a good job of expanding further on what this article is trying to reflect. The sources used in this section are indicative of what would be considered scholarly and relevant.

Content

The added content was applicable in the sections that it was added. Everything added was up to date and relevant to the topic of the article and section it was added to.

Tone and Balance

The additions that were placed in the sections contained a neutral tone. I did not sense any underlying bias. The additions were not trying to persuade anything. Did a good job of presenting the information with a sense of balance.

Sources and References

After reviewing the sources used, I believe they reflect the criteria that was established by Wikipedia and our professor. However, I was not sure if they were sourced correctly when I compared them to the other references listed on this article page. Authors of the article may want to review these to make sure they are cited correctly.

Organization

The additions to the article did not alter the organization that was already established by the original creator of the article. I think that the additions maintained the organization that was already present. After reading the additions, I believe that the grammar fits the content in a way that creates understanding for the reader.

Overall

The portions of the article that had content added to, then created more understanding and unison to the content already present. A strength that I could see was that there is now a better lead, giving more information to someone that is trying to understand the theory. There is also clarification in other additions to how the content was established in this article.

Karissa.Davidson

Overall:

From my understanding, the addition to article were examples. Solely based on this addition I felt that there needed to be more elaboration. Although the examples were good. I felt like if there was more added to the article, I would be able to have scholarly evidence based examples. I was not sure if there were any more additions because the examples in bold were all that was presented.