User:Ktjannat/Affection Exchange Theory/Oluwadamilola Opayemi 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? (Khadiza Janat Tulles)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ktjannat/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. Jannat updated the initial article with the name of the theorist who developed Affection Exchange Theory, the year the theory was applied to research as well as the purpose of the theory.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead contains substantial content about the origination of the theory. I recommend including more information in the lead about what the theory purports and research application.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead section highlighted some parts of the articles major sections. However, I recommend merging some of the subsections into one as their content can be combined under one category. For instance, the sections about theorectical components, theoretical assumptions and proposition can be combined under one subheading.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. Some information could be removed to increase the article's focus on the theory itself rather than the theorist. For instance, in the first paragraph you include the current academic affiliation of the theorist. And also in the second paragraph, you include the academic affiliation of the theorist at the time the theory was developed. I am of the opinion that one of this information could be removed from the lead as they do not necessary contribute to the content of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The added content is relevant to the topic especially the (1) theoretical assumptions and proposition as well as (2) the conceptualizing communication in AET sections. However, as I recommended above some of these sections can be merged into one. For instance, I am of the opinion that some of the content under the subsection 'Motivation for AET' can be moved to the lead section as part of the introduction of the theory and article. . It somewhat felt like putting this section after theoretical assumptions disrupted the flow of the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I recommend looking through the article for information about the theorist that does not necessarily contribute to understanding the origin of the theory.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. I recommend looking at existing articles on wikipedia to see how in text citations are incorporated into the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the research cited in the article were published at the inception of the theory. This is a good thing as these articles provide an original explanation of the theory. However, I feel it will be good to cite some recent publication about AET. These recent citations are likely to provide as insight of whether the research application and conversations about AET changed over the years or it there is any expansion or advancement to the theory.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is. I recommend moving some of the content around to allow easy flow of article reading for the reader.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I suggest reading through the article for some typos.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? My suggestions is to merge some of the sections into a unit. Although this sections reflect major points in the article combining them under a single subheading could positively impact the structure 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? yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes

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? Would recommend including more content about the findings of recent studies that applied AET.   Probably keeping a focus on whether the new finding supports, expand or questions the tenets of AET.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength of the content added include adding information about what the theory attempts to purports. I feel that this new information provides a clearer direction for improving the content of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Please refer to the suggestions I provided in comment under Organization and content.