User talk:RyanMorville/sandbox

Peer Review
1. I think the best thing you have right now is your bibliography section because it can definitely be used to fact check the information currently found in the article. You provided a couple of sentences to go along with each link so that would be beneficial when you actually go into the article to add the citations and fact check. In your proposal you mentioned that providing citations is one of your main goals, and I think you are doing a good job of finding the references. In the sentences that you provided with your links, it seems like you are using a neutral tone, and no bias. Also, you referenced the Talk page of the article several times which is good because you are looking at things that other people wanted to improve as well.

2. I think you should add a proper bibliography instead of just providing links. In other wikipedia articles, at the bottom most of the them, they have references that utilize MLA or APA so I think that would be beneficial. This article already seems to have a lot of information, but there are places in the article in which there are no links. So as you mentioned in your proposal, I think you should focus on adding those references and perfecting what is already there. I think you ensure double check the sections that do not have any citations just to ensure that there is no plagiarism or false information given. Another thing you could work on is the lead section. There are a lot of subsections for this article so you could introduce those in the lead section briefly. The lead does not really discuss majority of what is in the article so I think that is a key thing to look at.

3. As I mentioned before I think the most important improvement you can make it adding citations. There are several sections in the article that have no or minimal references. I noticed that the sections: Off Record (indirect), Choice of Strategy, and Politeness Strategies do not have a lot of citations. The chart in the article also has no citations so it would be important to add something to that as well. Also, the previous authors seem to cite reference 8 for a lot of the information so it would be good to look into that source to check for plagiarism. Again, I think your main focus should be the references/citations because I think the article already has a good amount of information so that is not a key problem. Sibyl.ambazhachalil (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)