User talk:T15311327/sandbox

Peer Review of Your Suggested Changes to "Communication Accommodation Theory"

Hello, I am responsible for reviewing your suggested changes to the article. In reference to your changes:

You use only 2 of your sources. Do you plan on using the rest?
I believe the sentence you inserted into the introduction fits better under the section on CAT.
I noticed that you have removed some sentences from the first 3 sections. Will you delete those sentences from the actual article? If so, I recommend you don't remove much from the 1st section as it seems that you would be removing plenty of meaningful information. On the other hand, the removal of the sentences from the 2nd section seems appropriate. The removal of the last sentence from your 3rd section seems unnecessary and removes some meaningful information.
The information you're adding is relevant, and it serves a purpose. That is very good.
Almost all of the information you're adding is coming from one source. I don't suggest that you remove information from that source, rather, add more from the other sources.
I like what you added to the Divergence section. It really needed some more elaboration.
What you added in the 4th section is fine.

So far your changes are looking good. All I recommend is that you try to incorporate more of your other sources into your changes and that you review the deletion of information from each section, primarily the 1st section. —Big Añu (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peer Review

Thank you for your advice! :)

As to answer some of your comments:

1. I was concerned about over relying on that source but yes, I plan to add a study "“Investigating Strategies Used by Hospital Pharmacists..." and changing one of the Divergence lines to Baker's primary study.

2. Should I search for another source to explain CAT instead and move the current two to the SAT section?

3. I have to remove all of source #1 material as it is from a textbook. As for the introduction, I will place the sentences back. I just didn't know if it was too distracting so thanks for clarifying that.

Again, thank you!!! I was really questioning myself but I'm glad for the feedback.- T15311327 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]