User talk:Vsusy89/sandbox

The article "Self-fulfilling prophecy" clearly needs to provide citations for important information and refer data within the sentence. Additionally, there is evidence of plagiarism with the use of extensive in-text citation of original sources. Several parts are not relevant to the topic of the article such as the second paragraph in the "History of the concept" section and the "Sports" and "New Thought" sections. It is also lacking information and data in some parts such as the "Stereotype" and "Causal Loop" sections.Vsusy89 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The article "Self-discrepancy theory" needs to improve citations. For example, the link to references 2, 3,4 and 5 were in incorrect locations. The in-text citations should not include the page of the source for this format. Sections such as "Standpoints of the self" and "Application and use" require extensive review of citations. Secondly, all sources were out of date with none of them with less than ten years of publication.Vsusy89 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Jose's Peer Review
The summary plan is very thorough, and helped to clarify any changes being made in the article's sections that were being reviewed and improved. The work done towards the improvement of the article was well thought out and implemented effectively.


 * The changes made to the lead section make it a lot more concise, and provides insight into the overall content and importance of the article for the reader. The first sentence introduces effective intercultural competence and appropriate intercultural competence in this order, but the rest of the lead has them in reverse order. Perhaps it would make more sense to organize them in the same order for clarity and to avoid confusion from the readers.


 * The revamp of the basics section was very well done, and helped to make the section clearer and provided better support as far as sourcing is concerned. The way in which it was worded made it easier to read and helps to engage the reader without seeming biased. I may be mistaken, but in the beginning of the second sentence from the third paragraph there is a typo using this instead of these. The only other concern I would raise here is in regards to the use of our and ours in the second and fourth paragraph.
 * Perhaps in the second paragraph, these sections could be changed from of monitoring ourselves to of self-monitoring; and in the last sentence of the second paragraph, simply not using our would help maintain the same tone throughout the section.
 * In the last paragraph of this section, the wording of the first sentence is a little confusing. Again, the use of our and ours may need to be reconsidered.


 * The addition of this section was a very intelligent decision, this section helps to clarify some information in the article and provides much needed information. In the second sentence of this section, there appears to be a mistake by using this instead of these. Again, the use of our and ours may need to be reconsidered, this language is a change from the rest of the article and may reflect an essay format.


 * The changes done in the cultural differences section were well done, and helped to make the text easier to read and understand. The overall layout of this section makes the information more accessible to a reader. Only one thing to notice here: some of the bulleted points start with capital letters while other do not. This may be something to change to reflect a more consistent structure for this section, not addressing this may lead the reader to see this section as messy and so lead to the belief that this information may not be reliable.

Overall, the changes and additions done to this article have thus far done a great deal towards making this article more concise, and improving the quality of the article itself. The work here is reflected in a thoroughly thought out summary plan, and the changes were all implemented very well.
 * --Destiel552 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)