Talk:Organizational learning/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this article. I'll begin with some basic checks like copyright and will continue with a section-by-section review. I notice that the nominator doesn't seem to have been active recently. After posting some initial feedback, we'll leave this review open for a few days to see whether anyone would like to respond to the feedback. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I start by looking at the overall layout, copyright status, wikilinks and external links. I don't detect any inappropriate use of copyrighted text in the article and the one image seems to have the appropriate copyright license attached to it. The article's external links all work. On the wikilinks (the internal links to Wikipedia articles), I see one issue. In the second paragraph of the Relevance section, there is a link to routines. This link leads to a disambiguation page, but none of the material on the page discusses routines in the context of learning.

Something that sticks out to me is the use of caps in the section headings. See WP:SECTIONCAPS for an explanation of sentence case versus title case for these headings.

Below is some section-by-section feedback from an initial readthrough.

Lead

The lead section should provide a summary of the points made in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD.
The word inter-organizational doesn't need a hyphen. This one repeats in other sections of the article.
The last sentence is awkward, with the use of "however" in the middle of the sentence, but I suspect that you'll have to rewrite the section per WP:LEAD.

Relevance

The wikilink to "organizations" should occur on the first mention of the word. Same thing for "knowledge", "experience" and other terms.
Generally, we don't want to have any paragraphs that are unsourced.
The wording of one of the sentences (the last sentence of the third paragraph) is a little confusing to me. Maybe try taking out "extend beyond retaining individuals to" and replace it with "include".
For the first quote and source under Units of Learning, you want to make sure you use reliable sources. Is the UNC source a class syllabus or a set of lecture notes? You could likely find similar info in a journal or textbook.
All of these technical terms (like Individual Learning) should probably be in lowercase letters unless they are some sort of trade name.
Under Individual Learning, change "doesn't" to "does not" and check for contractions in the rest of the article.
Under Inter-organizational Learning (" An organization is able to improve their..."), I would use "its" to correspond to organization, not "their".
In some places where direct quotes are used, it might be more natural to use paraphrasing. I particularly noticed that in Adaptation and Routines with the mention of the three criteria.

Knowledge

"Researchers measured..." - isolated use of the past tense

Will be back to leave more feedback once these issues are addressed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as unsuccessful for now. The nominator hasn't been active since December and this review was open for more than a week. We are left with sourcing issues and problems with guidelines like WP:LEAD. If anyone would like to work toward GA and can address the above feedback, just ping me and I'll be glad to continue the review. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]