User talk:LucyPadron/sandbox


 * Hi Lucy -- Just wanted to say hello and I'm looking forward to being in another class with you!Rlhamm (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
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.	I believe that the introduction provides me with a basic knowledge of the concept.

2.	What are the strengths of the content sections? Talk about the organization, flow, and what you learned from these sections.

i.	The contents outlines the page well. I especially appreciate the history section as the background knowledge here allows for better understanding of the page with information that doesn’t belong in the introduction.

3.	What are the weaknesses in the content sections? What can the author do to improve these sections? Make sure to offer specific sections.

i.	I see that you plan to expand upon the “self-interest and interdependence” and add clarification to the “theoretical propositions” sections of the article. I believe the addition of real-life examples are always appreciated for readers who may not be as familiar with this theory. However, I would be sure to stay as objective and factual as possible for the nature of the publication.

4.	Does the “application” section make sense? What is lacking and how can it be improved?

i.	I see in your Sandbox that you are aware of the notification in the Applications section needing source verification. I believe any help you can give here would be greatly appreciated as this will allow the publication to see this as a well-developed article.

5.	Does the “critique” section offer a substantive critique of the theory or concept? What suggestions do you have to improve this section?

i.	This sections has plenty of citations to reliable sources. In terms of critques, I believe that any addition you can add here would be appreciated. Perhaps you can expand upon Meeker’s elements.

6.	Discuss any issues with grammar, sentence structure, or other writing conventions.

i.	I saw your additional information regarding the article by Susan Sprecher and agree that I’m not sure it is really needed anywhere in the article Rlhamm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Response to Rachel
Thank you for your insight Rachel! I will take this all into consideration as I move forward. I have been debating whether or not to add actual examples to the "theoretical propositions" section. I originally wanted to for more clarification but have hesitated because I do not want to lose the structure or validity of the current content. Do you feel as if examples of each proposition would be helpful to the reader, or do you think they would 'muddy the waters' in regards to the content? LucyPadron (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Lucy

Instructor Feedback for Wiki Draft
The work settings section is a nice addition. In the relationships section, the quoted sentence that you added in the first paragraph needs a citation, especially if it is a direct quote from a source. When describing Stephen’s (1984) work try to provide information about the findings or conclusions of this work rather than describing what the researchers did.

The footnote type section under the theoretical propositions section was a good idea and nice addition. Describe what “substance free” means when talking about the first five propositions. Also your last sentence in that paragraph is a little cumbersome and could be revised for clarity.

The Guth et al. (2010) section is a good addition. Avoid some jargon words such as “positive correlation.” Could revise the sentence describing the high interdependence hypothesis because it makes it sound like Guth et al. are supporting this hypothesis with their research.

The summary paragraph at the end is a good addition. I think adding a short note about the Sprecher article would be a nice addition to the existing applications in relationship section. Also, think about adding a critique section describing some scholarly critiques of the social exchange theory. Overall a great start and nice contributions to this already well developed Wiki article. Jrpederson (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)