User talk:Jacksonb8166/sandbox

Peer Review:

Lead section that is easy to understand:

Lead section's language is easy to understand and concise. The lead adequately reflects the structure of the entry, but does not address content sections 1-2 explicitly, as it does with the other content sections. Lead does not contain redundant information. A clear structure:

Content sections are not presented in the order discussed in the Lead. Revising the structure to parallel the lead would create an easier and more cohesive reading experience. Body structure begins with specific types of jealousy, then broadens into theory. I would suggest presenting information as follows: etymology, theory, romantic, sexual, gender, animals, applications.

Balanced coverage:

Coverage throughout the article is neutral and presents applicable communication theories, and provides a view of the topic from other content disciplines. Coverage in some of the non-communications related areas seems underdeveloped (animals, applications) but these topics are not the primary focus of our assignment/course, so that is understandable.

Neutral content:

Content is neutral and refrains for usage of sentences structures/wording that would imply persuasive writing or bias. Communications content that has been added presents multiple viewpoints of concepts.

Reliable sources:

If possible, recite reference entries 55-62, which are identical and should be listed together and will clean up redundant entries. The references section contains sources that are not cited in the body of the article and are not fully cited in APA format. If these remain, consider providing full APA references so readers can extend their learning. The Gender-Based Differences section is in need of citations. A significant portion of the communications theory sections could use additional citation for clarity, as most sources are only referenced once per section. Perceived additions, and the article overall, utilizes a wide variety of acceptable resources.

'''First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

Communications content formatted well, especially in the Communicative Responses section, and throughout. The piece presents, what seems to be, a good foundation to the communications aspect of jealousy and adds to the other content disciplines presented.

'''What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

Read of grammar/conventions. I saw a couple of verb usage issues and letters leftover from editing (Sorry, I'm a HS English teacher). I think that implementing the organizational and reference items discussed above will make the article flow better, be more logically oriented for readers, and provide the additional references needed to ensure the longevity of your work.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think the most important improvement would be reorganizing the information so that content moves from broad to specific and reflecting these changes in the lead will give the reader a better understanding of how the different aspects of jealousy are related across content disciplines.

'''Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

Your content about jealousy as it relates to negative affective and distributive behavioral displays is connected to my article, which is about the Cascade Model of relational dissolution. Jealousy and the behaviors presented definitely create the communication patterns discussed in my topic.

Thanks for your hard work on your article and for letting me review! Elboyd3 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)