User:Tcjohnson11/Conflict management styles/Tcjohnson11 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? SSchaffer1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SSchaffer1/Goals, Plans, Action Theory

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, this is a new article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - I think for readers who may not know much about communication rather than saying "interpersonal communication" at the end of the first sentence it would be clearer to instead define interpersonal communication.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Partially - the sections are laid out but could be elaborated on more (ex: what are primary/secondary categories? what are strategy/tactical plans? what do the four dimensions of actions: explicitness, dominance, argument, and control over outcomes, mean?)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead includes information that is relevant in the article - what if you added a historical section to explain more on it being drafted by James Price Dillard? There are a lot of sources in your list from him and I believe that would be the only piece of information that isn't directly discussed in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise! I think you could briefly elaborate on a few things mentioned above and still keep it concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes - the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There are a few sources from the 1990s but most of the content is up to date and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? When reading the section on concepts, I feel that there could be more information. With the goals I suggest giving examples of each type of goal. This would help to better understand what they are and how they will use the goals. Same with the plans and action - I suggest adding examples to elaborate and make it easier for the reader to apply this information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral - I did not interpret any of it to be indicating the reader to lean towards a particular position.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not believe any of the claims are biased towards any position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe the viewpoints of the critiques could be elaborated on by going more into depth about the things that scholars are questioning with this theory.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is not attempting to persuade, it is all informative content on what the goals, plans and actions theory assumes.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all of the content is cited with a scholarly source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are through - I believe more information from certain sources (example: student-faculty interactions) could be used in the article to help make it a more informative piece. I did find another source that could be helpful in defining the types of goals - Dillard, James. (2015). Goals–Plan–Action Theory. 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic148. You have a few sources by this author, but this particular chapter is on Goals-Plans-Action Theory of Message Production - Making Influence Messages. There is a chart in this source I found on researchgate.net that explains the goals and gives an example you could use to help provide more detail for the readers.
 * Are the sources current? There are a few books dated in the early 1990's - but I believe this information is helpful and relevant to the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes - the links I checked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well written, there was no fluff in the article. Again, my biggest suggestion would just be to provide more detail on the body of the article. This will help readers who are not communication majors to better understand the topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? First paragraph the sentence "As a practical theory, the Goals, Plans, Action theory assumes that the world is knowable" should be changed to knowledgeable, a few of the sentences are a little short and could be combined with another shorter sentence to allow it to flow better ex: "Strategy plans indicate what should be accomplished. Tactical plans indicate how that will be done." can be combined to say "Strategy plans indicated what should be accomplished, while tactical plans indicate how that will be done.", there are a few comma splices in the beginning paragraph, other than that grammar & spelling looks good!!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - all sections presented in the lead were laid out in the article. All of the sections flowed really well in the order they were in - what if you turned those goals I suggested elaboration on into subsections? This would provide more detail and allow everything to flow smoother.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A no images or media
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A no images or media
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A no images or media
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A no images or media

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 - there are 15 scholarly sources for this article that are based off of the topic.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is a solid list of 15 sources - I searched to find an additional source to help with elaboration. I believe there could be more sources out there to help define.
 * 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? I think there could be more section headers with the 7 types of primary goals and 5 types of secondary goals. With the plans and action I would recommend adding a subsection for the types of levels for plans and the dimensions for actions.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? This article does link to other articles to make it more discoverable, what if you linked some of the primary / secondary goals to another article? This would make it more discoverable and help provide more information on these topics.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This is a new article - overall this is a very solid drafted article. I found the article to include all necessary content and this article was informative.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of this article are the layout, content provided and the good amount scholarly sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? To improve this content I would go into depth about the content you have provided and combine some of the smaller sentences to help with flow/ readability!