User talk:Chrissusskin/sandbox

Instructor feedback for article draft
The draft is a good start overall. I think with some expansion and revising it would be a good candidate for moving into the Wikipedia mainspace as an actual Wiki article. Here are a few suggestions as you work on revisions. For new articles remember to follow the guidelines on our course Blackboard site. You should include a background section and a critique section.

I suggest offering a definition of supportive communication early on, likely in the first sentence. The current first sentence is kind of a throw away sentence because it does not say much about what supportive communication is. Although you are correct in saying that supportive communication can be used to help people deal with their emotions, supportive communication is not just about attending to emotions, it is about providing comfort with the intention to mitigate distress.

The second paragraph seems more appropriately placed in a different section. Also, the paragraph suffers from using abstract descriptions rather than being more specific. For example, what do you mean by inconsistent results? What is inconsistent? What do you mean by "the lack of appropriate results based on research strategy"? What are appropriate results? The last two sentences of the second paragraph do not seem to fit the other sentences in the paragraph and seem to be a different topic altogether.

The third paragraph does not seem to hang together to be discussing the same topic. There is some redundant information from the previous paragraphs. Also, avoid using terminology that has not been described yet (e.g., informational support).

I'm not sure the Pederson & McLaren (2017) article is the most appropriate source for where it is cited in the first three paragraphs. There are some generalized statements that are cited but it would be difficult to point to those claims in the source article. Use a citation for specific information that can be found in the source.

The typologies section is obviously lacking content. Also, I would not call these typologies, but types. There is a typology of supportive messages that typically include these five types (missing tangible).

The research studies section could be organized topically rather than an overarching category of "research studies." I think you can summarizing the main findings and implications of the research study. I don't think it is accurate to describe a network of support providers "as the individual's social support." The second paragraph could be revised for clarity and readability. Also, the focus in this paragraph seems more about the cyberbullying than the supportive communication used to mitigate the effects of the cyberbullying. You bring in supportive communication in the third paragraph, but it could be expanded.

Overall, there is much room for improvement in terms of amount of content, organization, and clarity in writing.

Terms such as "supportive communication" and "social media" should not be capitalized.

The references are mostly in correct APA style. Make sure to use initials for the authors' first names. Also, do not included the "retrieved from" information because that is not required for peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles according to APA. Jrpederson (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)