User talk:Ktjannat/sandbox

Instructor feedback for article draft
Great start overall. Here are a few suggestions for improvement as you work to revise.

The lead section changes are good. I think the first sentence should say what the main idea of theory is rather than stating that is a theory that was developed by Floyd. At no point in the lead does the reader know what affectionate communication is. i see that you define affectionate communication in a later section but I think a one-sentence definition could be added to the lead section as well. The part of the sentence that starts with "his research concentrates..." is a little cumbersome. I suggest rewriting for clarity and readability. Try to avoid specialized or less approachable language such as "elucidates." Use more approachable language that appeals to a broad audience. Accordingly, the last sentence in the lead section will not be understood by a wide audience. Either refine this sentence to include a more approachable description or move it to another section where you can have more space to elaborate.

The "theoretical assumptions and propositions of AET" adds a lot of good information. There is a long quote starting with "(a) procreation and survival..." that should be paraphrased or condensed. I think you can explain what the last two assumptions in the first paragraph mean. I think the second paragraph could be transformed into a list and then you can offer an explanation and example following each one of the propositions to provide more depth.

The "conceptualizing communication" section is good because you are doing some more basic explanations of the theory, how it operates in daily life, and providing examples. The first two sections in this paragraph are fairly pedestrian and could be removed. I think the doctor-patient example is fine, but I think the initial greeting from the doctor of "how was your day?" is more a form of social normative politeness than affection. There might be a way to reframe this example to have a clearer picture of what affection looks like. This section might be a good place to differentiate feeling affection from communicating affection. Floyd makes a point to distinguish these two as an important aspect of the theory.

The "research and practical applications" section is a nice addition. The first sentence has a grammatical error with "closely 30 distinctive..." I think you can discuss one or two specific examples of these studies to provide more depth. Also the existing paragraph (second paragraph) does not seem to fit this section title. I think it should be moved up to the theoretical assumptions section.

The strengths and limitations section offers some good information. I think the limitations section needs to be elaborated a bit. I'm not sure the claim is accurate because there have been some discussions about cultural and environmental influences on affectionate communication. I think you can be more precise here. Also, explain why those other factors would be worthy to study.

Many Wikipedia articles use the linking footnotes option for references. You do not have to do this, it's just an option. Nice job using proper APA style! Jrpederson (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)