User talk:Rscottg

Welcome!
Hello, Rscottg, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Instructor feedback for article draft
Great job overall. I'm glad that you decided to move your article into the mainspace of Wikipedia. However, I was thinking students might want to wait until they receive feedback from my and their peers. It's fine, but it might have been helpful to do some revisions before posting the article to a "live" Wikipedia article space. Here are a few suggestions to improve your article.

The lead section is a nice introduction to the theory. The first sentence is a little inaccurate in my opinion. "Uncertainty management"﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿ is not a category of theories, it is a concept and there are several theories that explain the nature and function of this concept; uncertainty management theory is one such theory. The second sentence is a little cumbersome and could be revised for readability.

The background section has a lot of good information about the development of UMT and its connection to other theories. Dale Brashers passed away in 2010, but the writing makes it seem like he is alive. A picture of Brashers might be more relevant than a picture of the U of Illinois campus. The second sentence is a little weird because Berger is not a theory himself. The last few sentences in this paragraph contain some redundant information from the lead section (e.g., first theory to describe uncertainty as neutral). The last four sentences in this paragraph could be more concise.

The aspects of uncertainty section contains a lot of good content. I think the example in the first paragraph is helpful, but instead of using coin flips try using an example from close relationships. The backflip example seems unnecessary as it is a little redundant and not as clear as the coin flip example. I think there needs to be a paragraph about the specific assumptions of UMT and how they differ from other theories about uncertainty, particularly URT.

The remaining paragraphs in this section could be a different section, such as "managing uncertainty in interpersonal relationships." Much of this content seems like it falls closer to the framework of URT rather than UMT. What would be the main differences in this context? How can you describe these relational processes through the lens of UMT?

In the application of UMT section, use sub-headings for the health, organizational, and interpersonal sections. Avoid editoralizing descriptions such as "Healthcare without a doubt is the broadest arena of application with the most frequent references to UMT" This might be true but you do not provide any evidence to support this claim and the language can be revised to be less grandiose. For example, "Researchers studying health have employed UMT as a way to understand various healthcare contexts and processes including (list of topics in second sentence)" Use past tense for Brashers' (and others) thoughts and writings because they have already happened.

Again in the third paragraph be careful to not over-extend your claims without support and avoid infusing your descriptions with opinion ("people in relationships experience uncertainty on perhaps the most frequent interval.")

The critique section is good in terms of advocating for the value of the theory, but the style is not in line with Wikipedia encyclopedia style. There is a lot of opinion and editoralizing here. There is not much of a critique of the theory itself. What about the assumptions or postulates of the theory itself are potentially problematic. Try to analyze the theory itself and not how it has or has not been adopted by researchers.

Remember to use proper APA style throughout which includes using page numbers for quotes in text as well as accurate APA style for references. You will likely need to manually edit the references if you used Wikipedia's citation tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpederson (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)