User:MA2024/Uncertainty reduction theory/Gjd001aquinas Peer Review

General info

 * What your sandbox article does well is a clear understandable structure and it gives examples that simplify the theory. I found your sandbox article easy to follow. However, I had a difficult time understanding where you intend to implement these edits. I am confused with the original article listing 9 axioms, Your sandbox lists 7 axioms, and our textbook lists 8. The original article then goes on to list two more axioms! If there is a way to clearly state Berger’s axioms and the ones that were added, I think that would help the reader. Maybe you want to check the sourcing on the main article and also the sourcing in the book as well. You also may have done your research on this already. Lead Section  I do not see any issues with the lead section of the original article. It gives a summary of the article body. It also gives a brief history behind the theory. If you see issues, go for it!  Structure  I find the structure is very clear in your sandbox. The original article has some confusion. For example, the heading Application of Theory is massive with many sub headings that  Balanced Coverage  I do not have enough from your sandbox to accurately judge the coverage. In the original article, I was a bit overwhelmed with the “Application of Theory” heading. I think the “online surrogacy ads” heading is random and only covers one paragraph and one cited source. I wonder if you might want to delete that section, expand it, or transfer it to the “medical treatment” heading.  Neutral Content  I do not see a lot of biased content on your sandbox page. The sources that you use for your content are from our textbook. One thing that I found was in the first sentence in the “Definition” heading, it reads, “should retrieve general demographic information.” I think a more neutral way to phrase that is “people are inclined to” or “are motivated to.”  Reliable sources  In the original article, the paragraph under the “Scope of axioms” subheading under heading Critique is not cited properly. It only has a “(1990)” which I do not think works with Wikipedia.  Your ten sources so far, are all credible sources. I believe you found these out of the chapter of our textbook, which is great! I would encourage you to find some sources outside the textbook on ProQuest, PsychArticles or other library databases.  I’m sure this is no surprise to you, but I do not see any of your sentences cited. I also might suggest you cite Charles Berger’s work. Other than Charles Berger’s works, I wonder if you can find more recent research about the theory. One I counted three sources that are in the years 2022 and 2023. I also see that the textbook cites a guy named Walid Afifi three times! Maybe he has some great contributions to the theory.  I think the original article is somewhat comprehensive but not without its flaws. As long as you can clarify these confusions with your very comprehensive sandbox article, the article could look way better!

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)