User talk:Moeniagt/sandbox

General info
Whose work are you reviewing? Moeniagt

Link to draft you're reviewing: Social presence theory

It wasn't straightforward to determine your inputs by looking through history, as it seems like a different user removed some, but I will try to provide feedback on the article as a whole.

Lead
The first sentences cite the origins of the theory and what it entails. The second sentence starting with 'Lombard and Ditton' is a bit confusing as I don't know who those individuals are. Possibly providing context for those two would be helpful. There are also a few sentences that could use citations that may already be on your list.

Social presence consists of psychological processes such as social orientation, identifying motivations, group think, and of what inspires the feeling of being together, even through a screen. ... Social presence theory not only studies how social cues are transmitted, but also how desirable personal, social, and psychological traits facilitate building trust.

I thought more of the outlined topics: social orientation, identifying motivations, group think, and of what inspires the feeling of being together, even through a screen, would be discussed throughout the article. I like that the key concepts tie directly with the origins of the theory.

The lead could be expanded to give a more accurate overview of the article.

Content
The Emergence and Definition section is a little hard to follow as it mentions inconsistent definitions, which doesn't help keep a clear focus for the article. They could be removed unless you felt like they were critical to the explanation.

There is a lot of content in this article, and not all of it seems like it's in the right order. There are more subcategories after the Conclusion section, which is confusing to a reader. The Attentional Presence section should be moved above the Conclusion and possibly included in that section. Attentional Presence should also be included in the Lead.

There seem to be a lot of different aspects of this theory that are beneficial for the reader to explore, but this article could be edited down to be more concise. It would take some group brainpower to trim this down, but at the least, it could be reorganized.

Tone and Balance
Overall this article is neutral and does not appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Scholarly articles back most of the claims.

Sources and References
Some of the citations do not have a link to the cited works. It would be helpful if an ISBN were added to those citations.

There are a few citations that include articles written within the past five years to support updated information.

Organization
The content is concise in the individual sections, but the organization makes it a little difficult to follow. I mentioned earlier how some content (Attentional Presence) is misplaced. The major points of the article should be reorganized, but I think they all add something to the topic. The Lead and Conclusion could also be updated to reflect the rearrangements.

Images and Media
No images or media were used.

Overall impressions
First, the article has a lot of strengths in the information provided in the different sections. The theory is broken down well and backed up by scholarly data. It could be improved by updating the Lead of the article to reflect the major outlined points. Also, it could be reorganized to create a better flow. Lastly, updating ISBN information on a few of the sources will be a good way to send the reader to these sources. I was not able to review some of the content added as it was removed by a different user. Vkilmer02 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)