User:Mmallen3/Relationship maintenance/Chefmary01 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? Mmallen3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mmallen3/Relationship maintenance

Lead evaluation
The new content added is relevant to the subject and I felt that the addition of the definition of interpersonal relationships as well as the information added about scholarly interest leading to analysis. The content on Canary and Stafford five communication strategies is relevant and adds to the articles content by sharing specific strategies that the reader may use for relationship maintenance. Most of the major sections are touched on in the lead .- it does touch on some specific sections that I felt were the Peer's focus for editing. Knapp's model was not mentioned in the Lead. The Lead did not seem overly detailed to me.

Content evaluation
The content that was added was relevant and added to the article's topic. I felt that the addition of the research done by Canary and Stafford was relevant. It was dated (1980's) but the content is still relevant Is there any research that has been completed  more recently that would be relevant to the current times ? I felt like the content was sufficient and there was not any content that seemed out of place. The content added for the friendship relationship maintenance was concise and added to the article's tone of giving specific feedback/direction on each section.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that was added seemed more neutral than some of the current content. There is a request at the top of the article that states :this article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. It then asks for edits to make it more encyclopedic in style. In my opinion the article content added by the Peer was both neutral and seemed to match the tone of teaching style of the original article. I did not feel that it was written persuasively but to share researched and tested ideas on the subject of relationship maintenance. Of all the topics in the edited article as well as the original, I would say that the content on friendship relationship management could have more content. . The question was asked in the critique about having the different types of relationships that exist along with the information (from scholarly sources) on how to maintain those types of relationships. I thought this was a good idea to share both the relationship and the specific ways to maintain them.

Sources and references evaluation
Each addition of content was backed up by reliable sources. The different sources given seemed to generate across the different types of relationships that are being discussed in the article. The sources listed are in the last 10 years or so. The cited content was referenced from articles written in scholarly journals, and articles.

Organization
The content that was added was easy to read and was in my opinion a good addition to the existing article. It was written in more of the encylopedic style that is desired in this format. I did not find spelling errors. I would suggest modifiying this particular sentence that seemed not to flow well, :The most reported strategy was balance strategies followed by avoidance strategies then directness strategies regardless of the relationship condition (trying to maintain when emotional support steady and/or persistent. "

Overall evaluation
I believe that the content that was added makes the article more complete and also gives definied clear information based on scholarly research on how to maintain different types of relationships. The addition of information on friendships as well as adding in the findings from scholarly research on maintenance of specific relationships strengthens this article. I think that by adding more information on the friendship model and perhaps editing some of the current content that states information that sounds more like the personal feelings of the writer.