User talk:Cokelley710/Identity management theory

Instructor feedback for article draft
Great job overall with the draft. Here are a few suggestions for improvement as you revise. The lead section has some nice additions. Considering changing the part of the first sentence containing "theory from the 1990s." This implies that the theory was only used or relevant in the 1990s. I'm assuming it is still used and is relevant today. I think the sentence starting with "Communication competence (which is defined..." could be revised so that you describe what communication competence is in one sentence and how it applies to IMT in the next sentence. Also the phrase "communication competence requires" is strange to me. The last sentence in the first paragraph is dense and could be simplified. In second paragraph I suggest revising the idea that relationships are categorized as intracultural, intercultural, and interpersonal.  I'm not sure that type of nuance is good for a broad audience that would read a Wiki article.  Also, I'm not sure scholars would describe relationships in this seemingly mutually exclusive way. Also, the word "dyads" is accurate, but might not be as approachable as other descriptors, such as relationships between two people.  Remember that the Wikipedia style should be approachable by a wide audience.

The additions to the background section are informative and well written. The last sentence in this section operates as a nice transition sentence, but it is misplaced for an encyclopedia style that does not need organizational transitions sections like a regular academic essay. You can move this sentence to the next section or delete it. The Face and facework section is clear and concise. I think you could add a little bit here about how Imahori and Cupach's discussion and use of face and facework differs from Goffman's perspective because this section seems to describe what Goffman says about face and facework.

The face problematics section has good information. Maybe a specific example for each one would be helpful here.

The stages section is great. I think you could cite more often though, because it looks like only the last sentence is the only information coming from that source.

The application section has good information about research studies, but I think you could organize this section thematically rather than by research study. Try to use a theme or specific topic area for each paragraph and then cite multiple sources, if applicable, to bolster each paragraph.

In the critique section the source claiming that there is not a lot of research using this theory is from 2004. What about the last 15 years? There is possibly a lot more research using this theory between 2005-2019. Is there? Expand on the other critiques to describe why these are shortcomings of the theory rather than just stating that there is a lack of evidence or a lack of emphasis on networks. Why do these matter? Why is it important that these aspects are missing and what would be improved in more work in these areas was pursued? Jrpederson (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)