User talk:Michelle.m.wilson/sandbox

Peer Review from Ashley Teate
Hey Michelle! First I want to say good job!

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 do believe the introduction gave me an understanding of what revenge is and what it can look like in the real world. For example, Michelle mentioned that it could be harmful to others based on a perceived action. I may link to the definition of perceived or someones perception. So, just check and see if there is a Wikipedia article on that word. Also, I may bring up retaliation in the introduction and maybe talk about both terms and their relation. Again, link to that retaliation page. The only other thing that I think could be added is maybe the fact that not all revenge is physically harmful. Maybe, discuss some examples of emotional, physical, and psychological revenge. 2.   What are the strengths of the content sections? Talk about the organization, flow, and what you learned from these sections. I believe you organized this new section of the article pretty good, overall. I learned the four areas of emotional outcomes that a person can feel after pursuing the act of revenge. 3.   What are the weaknesses in the content sections? What can the author do to improve these sections? Make sure to offer specific sections. The "Function in Society" section seems to be a bit vague. I definitely see it has a place in the section of Revenge you are adding to the Communication Privacy Management Theory article. The wording "governed by social norms, can be explained a little bit. Maybe an example or more detailed explanation. Specifically looking at the titles, in one of our tutorials, it said to just say the topic of the section and to not keep repeating the title. For example: "Revenge in Human Relationships" could be "Human Relationships". I may take the 1,2,3,4 number feelings after revenge and put the explanation under their numbers to break up the lengthy paragraph. What about if you took the Precursors and place them right under the introduction, since they are "pre". What if you added a section on the alternatives to not engaging in the action of revenge. So, how to cope with the feelings of not being valued or feeling inferior in their particular relationship. 4.   Does the “application” section make sense?  What is lacking and how can it be improved? I did not fully see the "application" Section. Did I overlook it? I saw that you sited all of your work with creditable journal articles, which was great. So the application was really completely throughout your work. In terms of what could be added, the above suggestion in #3 is all I have. Nothing in particular to how the scholars have applied the theories. 5.   Does the “critique” section offer a substantive critique of the theory or concept? What suggestions do you have to improve this section? Loved your critique section. You gave two very interesting ideas for people to expand on and thing about. I do not have any improvements for this section. 6.   Discuss any issues with grammar, sentence structure, or other writing conventions. I did not see any grammatical errors or sentence structure errors. The only suggestions I have in terms of writing was the organization of the paragraphs listed above.
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item *
 * Bulleted list item *
 * Bulleted list item *
 * Bulleted list item *

Again, great job Michelle.

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Draft
I like the revision to the “lead” section for the revenge article. Is the quoted definition from a source? If so you need to include a citation for the quoted definition of revenge. Describing revenge as self-serving is a good addition, but are there emotional benefits to the person committing revenge behaviors? I suggest moving the paragraph starting with “Individuals who are most likely…” to the “revenge in human relationships” section because it is more specific to that section material and too specific for the lead section.

The addition to the “function in society” section is good, but it could use a more context about the source of this information. More detail would help here because the claim is generalized quite broadly.

Revenge in human relationships section: The first sentence is a little cumbersome due to the passive voice. I suggest revising for clarity. I’m curious about the “scholars in history.” Do you mean scholars who study history or scholars throughout history?

This sentence “There are four emotional outcomes considered when discussing the emotions one may feel after an act of revenge” could be revised to eliminate passive voice and improve clarity. For example, “Research suggests that people who enact revenge can experience one or more of the following four emotions.”

Avoid saying “research has proven” because scholars rarely can prove something, especially in social science. Instead say “research suggests” or “research demonstrates” or “research provides evidence for.”

The quote in the second paragraph is too long. Try to paraphrase instead. The quote about self esteem in the last paragraph could be paraphrased. Also, there needs to be more detail here. How does revenge acts improve self-esteem?

The precursors section is a good idea for an addition, but there are a few different items in this section because much of the section is about third-party involvement. I think the information about third parties could be expanded and you can make a new section about it.

The last sentence in this section needs more explanation. Why is revenge not a productive communicative response? What are the outcomes that this research reports? Also, avoid passive voice here because it seems more like editorializing on your part than reporting research findings.

I think you ask an interesting question in the critique section but it seems like less of a critique about the research that is presented about revenge. I’m not sure that Wikipedia conventions would allow for asking questions like this in the article because there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to developing conclusions about morality in general and specifically morality related to revenge in this case.

Overall a nice start. Just some things to expand and clarify. Try to reduce the amount of passive voice throughout. Jrpederson (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Ashley & Dr. Pederson,

Thank you so much for the feedback you provided on my planned edits and additions to the revenge article. I am looking forward to incorporating your suggestions to improve my contributions!

Michelle.m.wilson (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)