User:Olivia2701/Intrapersonal communication/ClebGlad Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Olivia2701


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * draft link


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * current article link

Lead

 * The lead has been unchanged
 * The lead does include an introductory statement that concisely describes the article's topic
 * The lead accurately summarizes the content left in the author's sandbox draft
 * No information present in the lead is absent from the main contents of the article
 * The lead is very short, and appears to be concise

Content

 * All the content added in Olivia2701's article is relevant to the topic. They fleshed out the background, disappearance, and legal proceedings sections.
 * The content added appears to be relatively up to date, with second-hand sources like a Kadmos journal article from 2009. However, the article's subject is historical in nature, thus the article focuses on drawing on relevant historical findings.
 * The article might benefit from utilizing more authors in the definition of the term "interpersonal communication"
 * The article's content largely does not focus on underrepresented groups or topics, and thus doesn't deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * Overall, content added is a neutral description of relevant details of interpersonal communication. Even the section "criticism of the concept" adopts a neutral tone.
 * The article doesn't appear to make any claims beyond those which can be evidenced by reliable second-hand sources
 * The article provides sourced presentations of various viewpoints
 * While much of the content added is based on the subjective works of certain authors, the article's neutral tone makes its clear that the author's intent is not to persuade the reader

Sources and References

 * All the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The content from the sources I checked does not misrepresent what the sources say, and also rephrases what the source says in the author's own words.
 * The sources are from diverse journals and authors and thus likely reflect the available info on the topic.
 * The sources range from 1986 to 2009. The time period of the sources is not as relevant as the subject of the article is largely historical, so most modern sources are likely to reflect a current understanding of the topic.
 * The sources used are largely credible, scholarly journals. Thus, it is unlikely that the sourcing of the article could be significantly improved.
 * The links that I checked in the sandbox draft article do work.

Organization

 * I found the content added to be easy to read, concise, and tonally consistent with the existing parts of the article.
 * The content added occasionally has grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors. For example, frequently in the section titles, the author has written "[edit]", while this is not appropriate to write within an article, but is something automatically added once your article is uploaded
 * The organization of the content could benefit from some improvement. For example, the author devoted a section to "contents" when the contents section is automatically inserted below the lead section, so the article ends up including 2 content sections.

Overall impressions

 * I'm not sure I find the changes that Olivia2701 made to be distinct from the original article.
 * The strengths of the content added are that it has very strong references, good grammar, and a thoroughly neutral tone
 * What can be improved is minor formatting issues and possibly more distinct additions to the original article