User:Mcthompson5/Theory of Motivated Information Management/Kewestbrook1 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? Mcthompson5
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mcthompson5/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The new information added to the lead section is very helpful in providing a more holistic understanding and general idea of what the Theory of Motivated Information Management is. The new parts were very informative, and helped provide a brief overview of the theory.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the Theory of Motivated Information Management. Also, the inclusion of the accepted abbreviation that goes with the theory is extremely helpful. The only part of the introductory sentence that needs to be changed is the initial part of the sentence where there are two random links that got included (From Wikipedia...jump to search).
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * This is a part of the lead that I feel like is missing. I think it would be beneficial to add a preview statement of sorts in order to prepare the reader for the main ideas that will be explained in the rest of the article. That way the reader would have a clear idea of what is going to be covered, so that they can decide if this article is going to provide the information that they are trying to find, and also to just prepare them for what is ahead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is not information included in the lead that is not present in the article. I did not feel as though there was information in the lead that was not followed up on throughout the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think that this lead is very concise and does a great job of accomplishing what a lead is meant to do, which is provide a brief overview of the topic in order to give a brief glimpse into the concept that is being discussed. As stated earlier, the only addition I would make is the inclusion of a preview statement, which would help give a roadmap of the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I thought that the content that was added was relevant to the topic. I felt like the areas where information was added it really served to accentuate the article, and the same for areas where information was removed. It provided a very holistic picture of what the theory was, and how it could be applied to real life, but without getting too wordy or confusing.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content that was added is up-to-date based on the dates I saw on the sources at the end of the article. None of the sources that were used to provide the additional content for the article were more than 5 years old, and this is generally a useful guideline to use in assessing the relevance/up-to-date manner of scholarly articles.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I felt like all the content that was included definitely belonged in the article. However, I felt like the last two sections: "Application" and "Critique & Future Directions," could have used additional information, specifically the applications section. In this section there were brief outlines of the studies this theory had been applied in, but they did not go into very much detail, so even choosing one to expound on more would help provide a vision for how this theory can be utilized in communication research. Other than that, I felt like this is a rather complete article, and definitely provides enough for someone to understand the basic tenets of this theory and how it can be improved going into the future.
 * I felt like all the content that was included definitely belonged in the article. However, I felt like the last two sections: "Application" and "Critique & Future Directions," could have used additional information, specifically the applications section. In this section there were brief outlines of the studies this theory had been applied in, but they did not go into very much detail, so even choosing one to expound on more would help provide a vision for how this theory can be utilized in communication research. Other than that, I felt like this is a rather complete article, and definitely provides enough for someone to understand the basic tenets of this theory and how it can be improved going into the future.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content that was added is neutral in nature. I did not get a sense as I was reading of any inclusion of bias, or correlation to personal feelings, throughout the article. It was all very factually oriented, and simply presented straightforward facts from various sources in order to create a holistic idea of the theory being discussed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As I read through the content of the article, there were no claims I came across that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position. All of the content in this article was academic in nature, and I did not feel pressed to see this theory through a certain lens of understanding, or from a specific perspective, while I was reading it. I thought it was very factually oriented, and did a good job of just outlining the theory in a way that remained unbiased in nature.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I did not feel as though there were viewpoints that were overrepresented or underrepresented. I thought this was a very well-laid out piece that added content from a variety of sources that did not proffer a specific viewpoint regarding this theory.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. As stated earlier, all the new content seemed value neutral, and did not seem to be pushing the reader towards a particular stance on this theory, or a particular perspective.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Each new piece of content that was added included a reference to one of the sources in the reference list. In addition, there was a relatively good mixture of quoting and paraphrasing, rather than just relying on quotations. However, there were a few parts that got quotation heavy, specifically where quotes comprised an entire sentence.
 * There were two instances I found where information was quoted, but it was not tied to a source, which would need to be rectified in order to ensure that plagiarism is not occurring.
 * Instance 1: In the decision phase section, in the subsection concerning avoiding relevant information, the quote in this sentence is not tied to a citation: This response is referred to as ‘active avoidance’ and essentially, the individual decides that “the reduction of the uncertainty related anxiety is likely to be more damaging than beneficial”.
 * Instance 2: In that same section, but in the subsection concerning cognitive reappraisal, the quote in this sentence is not tied to a citation: Therefore, the individual reappraises “the perceived level of issue importance, the desired level of uncertainty, of the meaning of uncertainty".
 * Overall, in this regard, I would just make sure that any information coming from an outside source, even that which is paraphrased, has a citation connected to it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Based on the titles of the articles, and then following the links, these sources do appear to reflect the available literature on the topic. Because this is a relatively new theory (first proposed in 2004), I think that the sources used are an accurate reflection of the depth of information that exists regarding this theory and its component parts as well as application to the real world.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All the new sources that are used are no older than 5 years, which is an indication that the material being used is a reflection of the current understanding in the field regarding this theory.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that are included do work, and they direct individuals to the page of the various articles that are being utilized as sources to provide the content for the page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * In the first paragraph after the lead there is a whole sentence that is a quote ("TMIM provides perhaps the most detailed ... seeking and provision). I would encourage this to be changed so that there is a lead-in to the quote of some kind because typically having a quote as a stand alone sentence is not a good idea. In addition, in the second paragraph of the interpretation phase section, there is a sentence (The revised version...can create emotions other than anxiety, including shame, guilt or anger, among others). I would consider rephrasing the section on emotions because it comes across as a little confusing in how it is phrased. Even just not including the "among other," and listing the proffered emotions of shame, guilt, and anger as examples. In that same paragraph there is another whole sentence that is a quote ("Decisions about what...from the discrepancy). As stated earlier, I would try to rephrase this in a way where there is a lead in of your own words, and then the quoted portion, or even trying to paraphrase it into your own words. There is another instance of a whole sentence that is a quote in the decision phase section ("Although directly seeking information...obtaining information"). I would encourage this to be changed to paraphrasing in your own words, or given a lead that introduces the quote. In the second sentence for the decision phase section, (TMIM proposes three ways of doing so:), I think this should be rephrased to indicate that an individual has three choices of how to handle information management, rather than how it is currently phrased. I noticed in the three sections that choice plays a large role in these three components, and I think that might be an important part to highlight when introducing them. In addition, there is a sentence in the second portion of the cognitive reappraisal subsection in the decision phase section (The decision to engage in any...presently possessed) that has an end quote but no beginning quote, so I was unsure if this was meant to be a quote, or if it was not a quote, but a quotation mark was accidentally added. The same thing happens a few sentences after this as well. I would just go back and check because if it was meant to be a quote then a citation also needs to be added. The final paragraph of the article, critique and future directions, the whole sentence is a quote ("General support for the workings...negative outcome expectancies"). This should be paraphrased into your own words, or given a lead in before starting the quotation.
 * Other than these things, I felt like overall the content was well-written including being concise, clear, and easy to read. The ease of reading will be enhanced by modifying these areas where whole sentences are quotes because seeing the quotes makes reading choppier versus having fewer quotes, which leads to an easier flow to the ability to read and comprehend the content. A quote can almost be construed as a break in the article, so the less there are the better and easier experience the reader will have consuming the content.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The first paragraph of the interpretation phase section, there is a sentence where the "and" should be "an" (This particular discrepancy triggers and ).
 * There is a sentence in the efficacy assessments section that is in parentheses but is not concluded with a period, which I think it may need (Will the expected outcome be too much to handle or manageable?).
 * Other than the things mentioned above I did not notice any other grammatical or spelling errors; however, this is something that can always be improved, as things are added or taken away from the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There is a small blurb of information at the end of the evaluation phase that talks about outcome expectancy (The theory argues that outcome expectancy...). This concept is mentioned earlier in that section, but the reader is not told what that means until this point comes in. I think it might be good to move this portion of information to an earlier point in the evaluation phase section because it helps elucidate what is meant by the term, so that when it is mentioned the reader does not wonder what it means.
 * Overall, I really liked the organization of the content. I especially liked the addition of the three sections that broke down the phases of the process the information seeker goes through. This really helped create a delineated outline for the reader as to the component parts of the process comprised by this theory. This structure also helped enhance the clarity of the theory itself since it is a bit of an abstract idea to comprehend.
 * I definitely thought the sections were broken down in a way that reflected the major points of the topic. I really thought it was well done.

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 images included in this article, so this question is not applicable. Because this is a theory, graphics are typically not something that add to the depth of the article unless it is a useful diagram that has been created to provide a visual portrayal of the theory. If that is the case, I would consider adding a diagram like that, but if it is not I do not think any images should be included in this article.
 * 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 **Since this is not a new article, these questions do not apply.
''' 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?
 * The article is definitely more complete after the addition of the content to it. Specifically, I think the most impactful change that was made was the addition of the three phases, and making them subsections of the process of information seeking section. This provided a clear flow of the component parts of this theory and really added value and clarity that this article did not have before this addition.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added include what I mentioned above, but also the fact that there is now a section concerning future directions of this theory. This section was entirely missing before the article was edited, and I think this provides strength to the article because it indicates that changes are being conceptualized, rather than making it seem as though this theory is stagnate. In addition, the content serves to outline the main tenets of this theory in a way that was not done previously. Thus, readers are able to walk away from reading this article with an actual coherent understanding of this theory, rather than before where it was an unclear, and not very robust description of the theory.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the content added can be improved by putting more of it into your own words through paraphrasing. I think there were a substantial amount of quotes and this took away from the readability and credibility of the article a little. In addition, going back and revisiting the way some of the added portions are phrased would be helpful in order to make them more clear and concise in their wording. Also, making sure that all of the quoted or paraphrased content in the article is cited or connected to a citation in some way.
 * Overall, I think this is a very strong draft of this article, and that other than the things I have mentioned it is a very good article.