User talk:Mosimpkins/sandbox

Wiki Draft Feedback from Jrpederson (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Good introduction. I think you could go back further as some scholars would argue that a scholarly conceptualization of “face” started with Goffman before Brown and Levenson. Also, avoid referring to the reader as “you” throughout.

The background section seems mostly similar to the Wiki article for “Face Negotiation Theory.” I think there is a difference between making a new contribution to existing content and rewording existing content while keeping the same information. If you are rewriting existing content to improve the readability of the article that is fine, but I’m not sure your revisions in the background section make a significant improvement in readability or accessibility. In many ways it seems like a thesaurus translation of existing text.

In the “face movement” section I would check the information about individualistic cultures having higher facework than collectivist cultures. First, I think this needs more explanation. What does higher facework mean? Also, I’m not sure that is accurate. There might be equal priority of face, but they get performed, threatened, and negotiated differently in individualistic and collectivist cultures.

The “conflict communication styles” section has some good information, but the first two sentences are somewhat unnecessary because you can just go right into the heart of this content. Also, in Wikipedia style, since there is an existing article about conflict resolution (which includes styles), it could be preferable (by Wikipedians) to quickly summarize conflict styles here or even just refer readers to the conflict resolution page with a link and then focus this section on how Ting Toomey and others have connected conflict styles to face negotiation theory.

The first sentence in the “application” section could be revised. I would avoid using the word “useless” here and also I’m not sure face negotiation theory is about making predictions as much as it about explaining.

The critique section offers some nice insight but I think it needs to be explained in plain language as it comes across as a little academic sounding. For example, what does it mean that “the spread of individualistic behavior is neutralizing the principles of the theory”?

Lucy's Peer Review
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? •	Overall, I think you did a great job merging new content with existing content in the intro section. There are no clunky transitions, which helps the reader’s digest the material in an effective way. This is an informative overview of the Face Negotiation Theory. However, there does not seem to be any citations associated with this section. My suggestion would be to add them to the corresponding content. '''What are the strengths of the content sections? Talk about the organization, flow, and what you learned from these sections.''' •	I think the flow and organization are easy to follow and complement one another. There is references to the same aspects and theorist through-out which helps tie the page together. I have added my analysis of the content sections at the bottom to provide more in-depth feedback, but overall I think you did a great job addressing areas that were lacking explanation. '''What are the weaknesses in the content sections? What can the author do to improve these sections? Make sure to offer specific sections.''' •	There are a few areas through-out the page that I feel could use some more explanation or examples. In the background section, I felt as if a few main concepts were lost in your sandbox draft (see below under Background).

'''Does the “application” section make sense? What is lacking and how can it be improved?''' •	I think you did a great job with the application section!! Not being super familiar with this theory, after reading your additions I feel that I can now identity this theory in different interactions of my own life! More examples are always appreciated, but I do not feel as if there is a lack of examples in the current content. '''Does the “critique” section offer a substantive critique of the theory or concept? What suggestions do you have to improve this section?''' •	This was a great add to the page! I think you gave a great overview of the limitations of this theory which will help the readers understanding of the basis and applications. However, I would add citations to this section. Discuss any issues with grammar, sentence structure, or other writing conventions. •	There were a few instances where I felt you introduced a section with non-neutral phrasing. In particular the background, face interaction, and application sections (see below for specific examples) I would try to re-word those phrases with more neutral wording. My analysis Intro Overall, I think you did a great job merging new content with existing content in the intro section. There are no clunky transitions, which helps the readers digest the material in an effective way. This is an informative overview of the Face Negotiation Theory. However, there does not seem to be any citations associated with this section. My suggestion would be to add them to the corresponding content. Background In the background section, I fell as if some of the original content was cut too much. You lost some of the general background knowledge which may have been beneficial to readers. Example: “Erving Goffman situated "face" in contemporary Western research and conceptualized the terms lien and mien-tzu as identity and ego..[3] He noted that face is a concern for one's projected image that is both immediate and spontaneous and is tied to the dynamics of social interaction.[4] Correspondingly, "facework" denotes actions taken to maintain consistency between the self and public line.” I think the social interaction and self and public line are important aspects of the original content and might have been lost in your expression. That is just my opinion, overall I think this is a great background section! I would also suggest rephrasing “It is easy to see” which went against our training of neutral content. Components/ Section I think you did a great job adding a bases of knowledge to the assumptions intro section. You were able to expand upon the information already given in a clear and concise way. I am a little confused on the sandbox version of the Face Movement section. I am assuming you are adding the content in your sandbox to the existing content, if not a lot of information is lost in your re-write. Going with the assumption you are adding the sandbox content to the current content, I think you gave great examples of how cultures differ in this aspect of face negotiation. Adding these examples will help readers gain a ‘real world’ perspective. Again, I am assuming you are adding the sandbox content to the already existing content in the Face Interaction section. I think the added content helps readers understand how cultures might differ and how face is displayed. I would change the tone of the first three sentences due to it conflicting with our training of neutral content. I think you did a fantastic job re-wording the five styles of conflict. Your expression is a lot more clear and concise to the readers. It expresses the point of each style in an intelligent way while still being easy enough to understand for general knowledge. Not having tons of pre-existing knowledge of this subject, I can understand your expression of the styles a lot better than I understood the current explanations of the styles. The Face Content Domains section was done really well! I walked away with a better grasp of the concepts after reading your explanations than I did with the current explanations. Applications I would re-word the first sentence to go along with our training for the week of neutral content. You did a great job adding necessary content for the application section. I think the content added gives a general enough background to how this theory can be applied that readers walk away understanding the overall applications, while setting up a transition for more in-depth examples of applications in the next sections. Critique This was a great section to add. I noticed the original page does not have a section dedicated to the limitations of the theory, so I think this will be a great addition. I think you did a great job addressing current ‘issues’ with the theory which can help readers have a better understanding of the theory today. LucyPadron (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Lucy