User:Paigebrinkley/Conflict management styles/Lenunn 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? Paigebrinkley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Paigebrinkley/Conflict management styles

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the author has done a nice job of adding new relevant information and previewing what comes to follow in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, I think the definition of the topic is well written and easy to understand.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the preview in the lead is helpful in distinguishing the different aspects of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead only highlights parts of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, with only brief overviews of the topical information.

Lead evaluation-
''The lead is really well written and briefly introduces all of the topics covered in the article. The only thing that I think could be added is a brief mention of the critiques of the management styles, but that is not necessary for the lead to feel complete. It is especially impressive considering that the article was not already existing on Wikipedia.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the article only includes the essential relevant information about the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, some of the concepts cited are older, but that is because the original measurements are still in wide use today.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong, but I think a few things could be added to make the article even more complete. For example, I think that along with the five management styles could be some demographic information and examples about who may be more likely to use one of those styles. For example: "women/men are more likely to be accommodating." This sort of data may not be conclusive, but I think examples would make the article more engaging.

Content evaluation
''Overall, the content is very good, and has a nice breadth and depth of information about the topic. I think that a few things could be added to make the topic a little more engaging. More new findings about trends involving relationships and organizations would also benefit the content, but it is overall very comprehensive.''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is very neutral in tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there is no clear motive by the author other than to further the body of knowledge.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the information comes from a wide range of sources, and does not really contain any viewpoints, it is purely informational.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not do this in any way.

Tone and balance evaluation
There are no notable issues with the content being biased or unbalanced in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the content is based on source material.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are all relevant reliable sources.
 * Are the sources current? Some are not as current as others, but a lot of the foundational sources are naturally older.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links are working properly.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are well used to supplement the article, and some newer sources are used along with more foundational literature to give the article more balance.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is written in clear and simple way that is easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice any errors in grammar or spelling.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization is broken into logical sections.

Organization evaluation
''The article is well organized with the background coming first, followed by basic principals of the concept, and then practical ways it is applied in research. This flow of information insures that readers will be able to comprehend the information if they read the article in order.''

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

Images and media evaluation
NA

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? Yes, the author does a good job adding in sources and has 9 total throughout the article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources cover a wide range of the pertinent literature, and there could be more sources added, but the amount now is more than enough for just a first draft of an article.
 * 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? Yes, the author did a nice job of breaking the information into relevant sections with headings and subheadings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does not link to other articles, and I think this would add to its significance and make it more easily discovered.

New Article Evaluation
''This article covers all of the bases for a newly written article. The author did a good job of synthesizing the available literature, and including all of the essentials of the topic.''

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Because this article is new, it is just containing the basic principles of the concept, but it is very well rounded and does not need much more content to be complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is full encompassing of the concept and gives a complete understanding of the relevant information.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think by adding some more engaging data and some more recent practical research.

Overall evaluation
''Overall the article is very well written and full encompassing. I was surprised to see that is was not previously existing on wikipedia because of how complete is appeared to be.''