Stroud109

Looking forward to exploring the communication theories together.Stellalqx (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Stroud109, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Peer Review

Hey Stephanie! I really enjoyed looking over your revisions to the Uncertainty Reduction Theory article. Overall I feel that you have done an extraordinary job renovating the various sections within the article. I noticed that some of the sections were a bit drawn-out before you started making revisions on the page. The sections still provide informative data but are not as lengthy and repetitive as before. Cutting out the repetitive and useless information helps make the article significantly stronger. I think it is great you added some sub sections as well. For readers who are viewing this page in search for a particular segment of the theory, the different sub sections will assist in the directing the reader to their desired segment. I also noticed that there is a great deal of internal links within the page. Many ideas within the page that help to describe the theory may be unclear to the reader. Even though we learned about post-positivist in class, I think it is great there is a link to the article for those who are unaware of it’s meaning. Before this semester, I was unclear of the definition of post-positivist so I think it’s great the article refers the reader to additional information.

Another revision that improves the article’s strength is the reference to low context and high context cultures. These were not previously mentioned within the article and I feel they are important concepts to consider when learning about Uncertainty Reduction Theory. You provided internal links to both low context and high context cultures which is helpful as well. You went into depth on high context cultures but did not mention the type of communication that low context cultures prefer. Maybe you could discuss more on low context cultures and give an example of how the theory applies to each culture. You could also add a further reading section within the page. This can refer the audience to other journal articles and books that discuss the theory further. Since we were required to find 10 references about our theories for our Wikipedia Progress Report, you could add some of those references to the further reading section if you decide to add one.

In the section “Stages of Relational Development”, the first statement has a footnote next to it that states “citation needed”. There is also another citation required in the “Contemporary examples” section. A minor edit I noticed within the page is capitalization of titles; you could capitalize the title of the article and some of the sub-sections to present the page as more professional . If you were interested in expanding on the “Contemporary examples” section, a few examples of how new media correlates with this theory could be beneficial. The section mentions Facebook, but you could discuss some of the discussions we had in class such as online dating and how this theory is prevalent among users. Overall you have made some great improvements to the Uncertainty Reduction Theory article! The paragraphs within the sections flow better, there are a great amount of internal links and I feel that the theory is explained thoroughly in great detail.

EmilyFuerst (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the excellent feedback, Emily! Stroud109 (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Review for Nov. 13

Great, points Emily! And great job, Steph!

I agree with Emily in that it looks like you've done a lot of really wonderful work. Your streamlining/cleaning up/organizing of the page was very helpful. In addition to cleaning up some of the information, the language you used was much clearer than some of the language used previously. It also looks like you created the AUM additions, which were a very informative and nice touch.

A couple of things that might make the page even better:

• While the low context and high context cultures at the beginning was a great addition, it might be a little too specific for the top intro. Also, as Emily mentioned, it would be great if you expanded upon these a little bit.

• While not necessary, I think that a little History/Background would be great! You mention the creation date of the theory in the beginning, but not much more.

• Again, loved the AUM Theory section, but thought it might fit better after the "Defense" and "Critique" sections as it is an expansion of the theory. The defenses and critiques seem to apply more to the theory itself.

• Also, as discussed in class (and I'm sure you're working on), "New Media" could use its own section, or even be explored further in the "Contemporary Examples" section. The "Contemporary Examples" section is a little bit informal and looks like you might not yet have gotten to it.

• Finally, in the second paragraph of the "Stages of Relational Development" section, there was a citation with a page number that didn't link to its reference.

Again, great job! Looking forward to seeing it when you're through. --Csmith22 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks so much, Cassidy! Stroud109 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)