Talk:Face negotiation theory

explian the negotiation

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Face Negotiation Theory → Face negotiation theory –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization"), and that theories and laws are usually downcased, and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Peer Review from Yuting

Hi, Vision! I think you did a great job writing the short introduction paragraph of the face negotiation theory. The original entry was too short and ambiguous to capture the insight of the theory. I totally agree with you that the original page was written in a manner of dry literature review. Your plan to reorganize the subtitles and add a background section is very reasonable. And certainly, there is necessity to include more secondary or tertiary sources to make the page more objective. In this sense, you could add in a new section of Criticism to address the limitations of the theory. Here are two more specific suggestions to the Theoretical propositions Section and Studies on the theory Section.

• In the section of Theoretical propositions, I suggest you to create a table with the 24 propositions. Because when I read the section, I felt so swamped by the items and had no patience to go through. I would prefer to have a table that helps me understand different levels of the theory and propositions. In addition, this table could contribute to clearer layout of the page.
• As for the original section of “Studies on theory”, I suggest you change the title as readers might get confused. I thought this section was about the criticism and limitations of the theory, whereas in fact it is about the theory application.Yutingmissdelphi (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review from Dur

Hi Vision,

I think you’ve pretty much addressed all the main weaknesses of the current Face Negotiation Theory article in your progress report plan. I agree that the lead needs to be adjusted, my suggestion for the lead part is to have it a paragraph long in which a reader can go through it and get a well-rounded idea of the theory without needing to read the full article. Another suggestion you might want to consider is in regards to the references. The eight references used lack sufficient support when compared to the amount of information included in the article, so adding more references and footnotes throughout the entire article will make it a more reliable source of information. In addition, the article only links two words to other Wikipedia articles which is one sign of a weak wiki article, so you might want to reference other Wikipedia articles via linking certain words to their related Wikipedia pages.

My final suggestion is editing the table of content in other words restructuring the sections, I suggest that you consider using subsections within the main sections. Since in the current article each main section has a vast amount of information that could be categorized into subsections, making it easier for readers to navigate within the page. For example the bolded titles under the Taxonomies section could each serve as a subsection which will be highlighted in the table of content for ease of navigation and for readers to be able to identify the outline of the article by looking at the table of content.

Best of Luck on this project! Dk802 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Grace M.

Hi, this is just a general comment about the page. In the introduction, the creators of the theory are mentioned but not cited here. Perhaps they should be cited from the beginning so the readers know this is legitimate? I think the creator's original publication (paper? book? article?) should be used in this instance.

--Mgmaliska (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Mgmgaliska