User:Stevenfigge/Communication privacy management theory/Katie.scht Peer Review

General info
u/Stevenfigge
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Stevenfigge/Communication privacy management theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Communication privacy management theory

Lead
I think the lead does a great job of summarizing CPM. It is concise and gives a clear idea of what will be covered in the article. Stephen was able to clean up some of the language which makes the source sound both more academic and more understandable.

Content
The content that Stephen edited makes sense for the article. Through cleaning up some of the sentences, he made it more clear for readers which makes the article better overall. These edits make the information more up-to-date and accurate. One section that seems lack-luster to me is the academic integration section. It doesn't contribute much to the overall article. I would really like to see this expanded on in future edits.

-If the topic warrants expansion...or perhaps it belongs somewhere else? I think that taking a moment to consider the outlines of our pieces might be a hep.-Borton-

Tone and Balance
Stephen used neutral language when editing and made sure not to overrepresent one opinion or another. The language doesn't feel biased while still being informative.

Sources and References
Stephen used many reliable sources including textbooks and peer-reviewed articles to expand this article's credibility. The sources are legitimate and do not reflect a strong bias in information or position.

Organization
I am a bit confused on what the academic integration section contributes to the overall CPM article. It is the only section that contains little information or purpose in my mind. One area for future improvement would be to expand on the little information there and cite it. If there isn't anything to add, I would think that it makes more sense to delete the section until more information becomes available.

Images and Media
While the images on the article are certainly helpful, I would also just like to see some other images to help use visualize the article (i.e. pictures of the authors). Overall, the images used in the article go above and beyond what many other articles contribute and make the information easier to comprehend for audiences beyond communication scholars.

General Impressions
I was impressed by what Stephen contributed. His edits certainly helped with clarity and elaboration with the broader concepts within CPM such as the axioms. In my eyes, the next steps for Stephen would be finding a few more images to help reader visualize and deciding what to do with the academic integration section of the article.