User talk:Aeteate/sandbox

Michelle's peer review
Hey Ashley,

Just a few thoughts here. It took me a bit to figure out what was added/edited as compared to what already existed as I found a majority of the original article in your sandbox, so I am hoping I interpreted your intended additions and changes correctly!! I apologize if any of my feedback does not align with your direction for this article.

1.    Does the introduction section in the entry provide you with a basic knowledge of the theory or concept? What could be improved in this section? I believe I was able to gather the overall concept of what conflict resolution is from this article's lead. The only thing that threw me off a bit was the way specific dimensions of resolution are identified right away. Moving those dimensions (cognitive, emotional, behavioral, etc) to a different content section and elaborating on them individually might provide a better flow for the reader.

2.   What are the strengths of the content sections? Talk about the organization, flow, and what you learned from these sections. I believe the content you added to this article definitely strengthened it and added depth and coverage to this complex topic! I appreciate the links you incorporated to other relating Wikipedia articles. I also really like that you added the specific steps involved in conflict resolution. For better flow, you might even consider making that a content section of it's own using a header.

3.   What are the weaknesses in the content sections? What can the author do to improve these sections? Make sure to offer specific sections. There is some biased language included throughout the article that could be improved, either by clarifying and citing or eliminating entirely. For example, in the conflict resolution curve section: "Conflict resolution by peaceful means is always a better option." While I don't personally disagree with that, it is only presenting one view.

Also, some of the content sections that were added in theories and models and conflict management, while they are linked to other Wikipedia articles, they are not cited or linked to a specific reference - and some references in pre-existing areas within content sections are provided in parentheses but aren't linked appropriately.

4.   Does the “application” section make sense? What is lacking and how can it be improved? I did not see a specific "application" section, though I did notice the article referenced scholarly implementations/applications of this topic throughout.

5.   Does the “critique” section offer a substantive critique of the theory or concept? What suggestions do you have to improve this section? I agree with your suggestion that different sections could be added regarding conflict resolution theories and strategies in different settings. Sometimes a "one-size-fits-all" approach isn't enough, especially as we are studying organizational communication as a whole. Not all organizations are created equally.

Suggested References: Here are a few articles that might be considered to bolster this section or include as further readings:

Aula, P., & Siira, K. (2010). Organizational Communication and Conflict Management Systems: A Social Complexity Approach. NORDICOM Review, 31(1), 125-141.

Kolb, D. M., & Bartunek, J. M. (1992). Hidden Conflict in Organizations: Uncovering Behind-the-Scenes Disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.m.wilson (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

6.   Discuss any issues with grammar, sentence structure, or other writing conventions. You write very well, Ashley! I only made a few minor grammatical changes within your sandbox otherwise your new sections were very easy to read and understand!

One last thought - regarding one reference. I am by no means a Wikipedia expert... this project has been quite a learning experience for me... but I think I remember in one of the trainings on references that they suggest not citing a blog and I did notice you did reference one ("Making Business Matter") but I'm not sure if that would be considered or not!

But seriously, great work Ashley!!

Michelle.m.wilson (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Michelle Wilson

Thank You
Michelle, Thank you for all of this wonderful feedback. I will be reviewing all of it and making sure to fit your suggestions in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeteate (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)