User:Sailormom2012/Communication between Long-Distance Couples/Jbevil1977 Peer Review

General info
Sailormom2012
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sailormom2012/Communication between Long-Distance Couples
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):User:Sailormom2012/Communication between Long-Distance Couples

Evaluate the drafted changes
The topic of the author's article is relevant to much of the population around the globe. Discovering how couples communicate over long distances and how that communication affects the couple's relationship is highly heuristic. The author has a clear interest in the topic. The article is well written, but could use some improvements.

The most important thing the author can do, is to eliminate the article's bias. The author takes a clear position on their interpretation of the topic, and attempts to persuade the reader towards that position. The lead section is updated and has information present in the article. However, the lead is too concise, it is not written in complete sentences and is missing punctuation, and does not describe the major section of the article. There is no flow to the lead section.

The author's content is relevant to their topic and addresses an underrepresented topic. Some suggestions to improve the article's content would be that the content is not neutral, there is a heavy bias toward accepting the author's view, and the content attempts to persuade the reader. For example, when the author tells us things like, "the most preferred method would be..."; "...face to face, is the more interpersonal way to communicate..."; "..important to communicate...more than once a week..", these statements imply bias and are not supported by a source.

Another suggestion that will improve the article is better sources. The author's sources are 20 years old, and thus less relevant. There are also too few sources, and the link on one of them needs editing. The author could try using sources from peer reviewed journals or textbook sources, rather than conference papers.

The organization of the article could be improved by fixing grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the article. The author could possibly break up the body of their article into different sections. Finally, the article does not meet Wikipedia notability requirements.

It is a bold undertaking to create a new article on this platform. I commend the author's efforts and support the topic, as it is relevant to my own life. I'm gone six to nine months of every year, for the past 20 years. Improving this article is important and I hope the author finds these suggestions helpful.