User talk:Jtshores

This user is a student editor in University_of_Alabama/Relational_Communication_-_COM_563_(Summer) .

Hello, Jtshores, and

! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the introduction. There is a nice set up to the topic. I’m not sure I would go as far as saying that conflict resolution and conflict strategies can be used interchangeably. Resolution is more about an entire process, whereas strategies is more about specific communication behaviors. Although there might be too much overlap to have separate Wikipedia article pages, I suggest not saying that these concepts are interchangeable.

Conflict styles instrument section. Try to avoid using the global “we” because it is too vague. I think you can provide an explanation about whether these styles are the same as strategies or if the terms are interchangeable in your opinion (or from source information). I think the EVLN model needs a direct connection to conflict strategies. Make a connection back to the main topic about why this model is included in the conflict strategies page.

When talking about the big 5 personality traits there could be more connection to conflict strategies by providing specific details about how these traits map onto specific conflict strategies.

The Meyers-Briggs section is good information about the instrument, but it is likely redundant information that already exists on the Meyers-Briggs page. I think the paragraph should be less about describing the instrument and more about how the personality types connect to specific conflict strategies. Then you can link to the Wiki article about Meyers-Briggs to give readers more information if they want it.

Although I see where you are going with the relational dialectics theory, as it is written now it does not have specific connection to conflict strategies. It seems like the information here would appear on a Wiki article about RDT rather than on the article about conflict strategies.

The critique section is good and offers some nice insights. But it seems like the critique are more about conflict instruments and less about conflict strategies or the research about conflict strategies.

Overall a nice start to building a Wiki article about this topic. Jrpederson (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I had some notes as well:

1. The first is that the draft needs to have more sourcing throughout in order to back up claims. Be careful of using studies, as they're seen as primary sources for the research created by its authors. The reason for this is that while the journal does put the study for a peer review, they're only checking to make sure that it doesn't contain any obvious issues or content that would invalidate the study and its findings. They don't actually verify the claims or give any sort of reflection on them. As such, you need to use secondary sources to not only help back up the claims but also show where the study is notable enough to highlight in this much depth.
2. I would recommend summarizing a lot of the lists into prose format. Lists aren't bad per se, but I wouldn't use as many as you have here. I'd also summarize the general findings of the study - specific examples of the responses are not really necessary. I'd put it like this, if you really wanted to leave it in list format:
   1. Exit Responses: Seen as destructive to the relationship and included divorce or separating. Some responses even included abusive behavior.
   2. Voice Responses: Seen as constructive, optimistic, and active, and included discussing problems and compromising.
   3. Loyalty Responses: Seen to be accepting of minor relationship issues, committed to the relationship, and expected conditions would improve.
   4. Neglect Responses: Seen to be passive and showed that partners ignored their relationships. These behaviors typically led to negative effects within the relationships.
3. Finally, you must avoid original research in the article. We can only summarize what has been written by authorities in reliable sources. For example, the critique section is completely unsourced and as such, would be seen as original research. If you're summarizing something that was explicitly written in a source, then it needs to be attributed along the lines of "According to So-and-So" or "In their book BlahBlahBlah, This Person stated that" and backed up with the source. If they don't state the claim, unfortunately we can't include it - editors are incredibly limited in what they can add.

I think that you're heading in a good direction, so this just needs a bit more work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]