User talk:Rciszewski/sandbox

Hi Rciszewski,

I can tell you spent a lot of time working on this Wikipedia Article. You added more information to virtually most sections of the article, which I’m sure required extensive research and a lot of work.

I’d suggest eliminating (or rewording) the sentence you added to the lead because it sounds like you’re stating the theory itself is how we gain knowledge about others, but the theory really suggests that gaining knowledge reduces uncertainty. If you do keep the sentence, I’d suggest you add a source to back up your statement.

I think you hit a homerun with the information you added regarding axioms and theorems and the information you added to the axioms section. This is information that’s certainly valuable to the article. I’m surprised it wasn’t already there, but I do think you should move this information into the main Wikipedia article. Just a quick edit, the word “incentive” is misspelled in your sandbox.

Under the section principles to reduce uncertainty, it is not clear to me whether this information is part of the initial theory, or rather information you gathered from Mark Redmond’s papers. In other words, are these principles original work that Berger and Calabrese included in the URT, or were these principles created by Redmond (or someone else)? I would suggest writing a small paragraph that explains where these principles came from, but other than that this section is a really good addition to the article.

The information you added to the background, types of uncertainty, processes of uncertainty reduction, incentives to reduce uncertainty, and uncertainty reduction strategies sections is spot on. I’d suggest working on how you’re wording things slightly so the information flows better. But I do believe the information you wrote adds value to the article so please consider adding this information to the live Wikipedia article.

The information you added to the anxiety/uncertainty management theory is really good. I would suggest just double checking your grammar because I’m seeing some errors.

Finally, the related theories section is excellent! I think you had a great idea by adding those. I would only suggest to maybe link those to existing Wikipedia articles (if they currently exist) so users can read more about those theories if they want to.

It’s very difficult adding information to existing paragraphs or sections because you still want the information to flow as if it was only one author. Overall, I think you did an amazing job. I can tell this was no easy task, and you handled it very well.

Steph.sparks (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)