User talk:Mmallen3
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Alabama/Relational_Communication_-_online_(Fall_2020) . |
Mmallen3, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Mmallen3! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Mmallen3, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Instructor Feedback for Draft
[edit]Overall, I think you are highlighting the main ideas of relationship maintenance in this draft. There are some areas for improvement however. First, the organization and layout of the page is a little difficult to follow and should follow the Wikipedia page format. Since you were drafting on your "user page" instead of your "sandbox" page it might have not allowed you to use the visual editor tool and citation generator that can make things a bit easier. Regardless, the APA style is incorrect both for in-text citations as well as the reference section. Remember to use the primary source rather than secondary sources, which should be peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. For example, you cited Andrew Ledbetter's personal blog in which he talks about an article he published in the Southern Communication Journal. You need to find that article, read it, and cite it appropriately in your Wiki draft rather than using his blog. The next big question I have is how your content could be integrated into the existing Wikipedia article for Relationship_maintenance. There is plenty of overlap of content, albeit presented and organized differently. Did you decide that you wanted to start over with a new version of a relationship maintenance page to replace the existing page or did you have ideas about how to integrate your content into the existing page? It would have been helpful to describe your use of bolded text at the beginning of the page instead of the end. Here are some suggestions for the individual sections in your draft. Lead: I suggest starting the first sentence with a definition of relationship maintenance rather than a statement about the outcomes of maintenance. I would argue that all relationships can use all types of maintenance and that the type of relationship does not determine what maintenance strategy is best to use, as your lead section implies. Instead people might use a certain maintenance strategy in a given situation but that other strategies can be used in other situations. Even further, some scholars would say that mundane, everyday talk can be a form of relational maintenance that can be occurring often throughout daily interactions even without much intention. Listing the types of relationships and stating that relationships require communication seem a little pedestrian and could be removed to free up space to describe what relationship maintenance is and the main ideas about it. The information about the 1908s should be moved to the background section and "factor analysis" should not be discussed because that gets too technical for this type of Wikipedia article (more appropriate for an article about statistics).
- The three sentences offset above the background section seem to be editorializing a bit about relationship maintenance rather than providing encyclopedia type of information. Delete or revise accordingly.
Background: The content in this section should be moved down to a content section such as "Types of maintenance strategies" and the background section should be information about how the concept of relationship maintenance was developed and how the study and research about it has evolved to present day. Content sections: i think your idea of using different types of relationships and the unique maintenance considerations for those relationships is a good one. However, I would put those sub-sections in the application section because you are applying the concepts in practical ways in those relationship types. The content sections then could be about describing what relationship maintenance is and the various forms and strategies it can take. I'm surprised you did not discuss routine versus strategic maintenance. I'm not sure who Dr. Ken Druck is and where to find this information. It is not properly cited. Also, I'm not sure how these recommendations are specific to family relationships because it seems like these suggestions could apply to any relationship. Clarify what is unique about the family context and how maintenance might function differently in this context. I'm not sure what the list of strategies under "romantic partner relational maintenance" is about. Need to elaborate and describe clearly with full sentences. Both the mentor/student and friendship sections need more elaboration. Application: There is some good information here, but I think it can be reorganized in the article. The information from Ayers (1983) about conceptualizing what relationship maintenance is should be moved up into a content section about conceptualizing relationship maintenance. I don't think you need to provide as much information about the Ayers study in terms of what they did, but focus instead on what they found and what it says about maintenance. The critique section has not been developed. I was surprised that you did not cite work by Dindia or Dainton, two researchers who have studied relationship maintenance a lot. Jrpederson (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)