User talk:Vwagner17/sandbox
Yherzon's peer review
[edit]Hello! The article plan effectively addresses the necessary changes to take place. However, I can see that the paragraph that you wrote in your first draft is not mentioned on your plan; nevertheless, it is an adequate example to the article's topic. It seems to fit within the "Interpersonal communication" section very easily. What I find somewhat unnecessary is the link you put to the "anxiety" word. It is a term that has already been used previously in the article. You may want to consider adding the link to the first time the term appears (2.5.2.Depth). In regards to the elaboration, the section you plan to add is well balanced in comparison to the other "Interpersonal communication" sub sections. The title can still be worked out by only focusing on "sexual communication anxiety among couples" instead of "sexual communication and anxiety among couples" because the main focus of your paragraph is communication, and how it is influenced by social anxiety. Finally, the link for your source should be good to be changed by the one suggested. Overall, good job! You picked a solid application on social penetration, and the language you used is very accesible. YherChu (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Melinda's peer review
[edit]This article is pretty well written and informative to start with. There is a great amount of information and the citations are mostly all from credible sources. However, I believe there is a lot of condensing you can do to make it concise/easier to read, citations 4 and 25 have broken links/incorrect ISBN numbers, computer-mediated communication is missing citations, and you can possibly remove the criticism section. I believe all the changes you have made/are going to make will definitely polish the article as you stated. I believe you are doing a great job and are on the right track. Good luck! Melindaelena (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)