User talk:Tgsmith1908/sandbox

Davis Manning's Peer Review

Hello Tequila! I think you chose a good article to edit. The article on relational dialects is extensive but kind of all over the place with the content to the point I was a bit confused reading the whole article. You have done a good job in getting the editing process started. The following are the main points I came away with in reading the article and your additions to it.

The Lead Section:

The lead is written well and does a good job of outlining what relational dialect is and how it relates to communication. It doesn't get bogged down in the details but lets the reader know what the theory is and provides a solid foundation. If there is one thing I would change in the lead section it would be the citing. It is a bit confusing how the original author cited directly after the names of the researchers. Also, one of the sources (4) does not relate to Barbara Montgomery.

Structure of the article:

I believe this article could benefit from an overhaul in the overall structure. The lead section and history section are good lead ins for the overall content. After that the article goes of in many different directions that are somewhat confusing. I would recommend consolidating information from the concepts and dialects section and make the content more concise. Making the information more concise will make it easier on the reader to understand the concepts and theories being discussed. I would suggest the following sections: Lead, History, Concepts, Applications, and Critiques. The yin and yang symbol you added was a nice addition and gave a visual representation to what was being discussed in the History section.

Balance of the article:

As I mentioned above, the balance of the article is confusing. There does not seem to be a clear flow to the section headings and reads as though people have added content with little regard for the flow. This can be an opportunity for you to come in and organize the article in a way that makes sense to a reader with no prior knowledge of relational dialects. For example, the theory section discusses end of life care, grief, and understanding autistic communication. These topics mostly discuss situations not theory applied to relational dialects. I would recommend moving these to a subsection to concepts as strictly examples or deleting all together.

Reliable Sources:

For the most part the sources are reliable and from peer reviewed publications. However, I did notice in your addition to the ethics section you cite a paper by Laurie Moroco (42). It looks as though this paper is not peer reviewed or published in an academic journal of any kind. I would recommend finding another source to back up your claims in the ethics section. I would also recommend to go though the article and make sure each statement is backed up and cited by a source. There are numerous places were the author sourced only at the end of paragraphs rather than at the end of declarations.

Generic Comments:

I found your artwork to be nice additions to the overall content. The original page didn't have any media content and it made it more tedious to read.

You identified a couple of sections that needed to be beefed up and added some good content. The only suggestion I would make would be to take care to find reliable sources to back up your statements. Also, in the "Core Concepts" section the original author cited one statement by using APA parentheticals instead of using the numerical citations imbedded within the article. It would help the overall page if you corrected that for them.

Just like you I thought the section titled "Approaches to Relational Dialects" was lacking and needed more supporting content. I think you have begun that process well. I would recommend expanding further and backing up any statements citing peer reviewed research. Using research to back up your examples can help clarify them and give them more credence.

One opportunity to add content is expand on the "History" section. One author mentions Baxter's T-Bangha of axes and how other researchers expanded on that. However, there is no explanation of what that is and left me confused but also wanting to learn more.

Overall, I think you have done a nice job starting to edit this article. You have identified key areas for improvement and added some good content. I do not envy you as this article has a lot of content and there are many areas which can be edited. It can be overwhelming to edit an article of this size. Good luck in the future and nice work!