User talk:SRampersaud/Interview
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
| Name of student | Wikipedia User: M.Caban |
|---|---|
| Date of review | 4/25/2013 |
| Name of editor | Wikipedia User: SRampersaud |
| URL of editor’s Userpage | Sandbox pre-edit URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Interview |
| Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page | 4/25/2013 |
| Date review submitted to instructor | 4/25/2013 |
| Length of edit (too long/too short) | Good length |
| Image (needed/appropriate) | No image is needed |
| Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit) | The information provided was accurate from the text book |
| Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed | N/A |
| Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych) | The article information was relevant to I/O Psych and was accurate from the textbook. |
| Wikiformatting | Bullets were appropriate |
| Grammar & composition | None |
| Other comments | If it can be found, adding a external link would be beneficial |
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Name of student reviewer: Aisha Hamid
Date of review: 4/25/13
Date of review:04/25/13
Name of Editor: S.Rampersaud
URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Interview
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:04/25/13
Date review submitted to instructor: 04/25/13
Length of edit (too long/too short): Length of edit exceeds requirement.
Image (needed/appropriate): No image in edit. Image would have been appropriate.
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Information is accurate, from the textbook.
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A
Wikiformatting: Formatting is good. Bullet points enhance the text.
Grammar & composition: Grammar and composition is accurate, no errors.
Other comments: Well done!
(Aisha Hamid (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC))
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Name of student reviewer: Aaleksanian
Date of review: 4/13/13
Date of review:04/17/13
Name of Editor: S.Rampersaud
URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Interview
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:04/17/13
Date review submitted to instructor: 04/17/13
Length of edit (too long/too short): Exceeds the requirement
Image (needed/appropriate): Picture might be available to find
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Accurate to textbook information
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A
Wikiformatting: Fine formatting
Grammar & composition: Proper construction of edit material
Other comments: Well done job. Heading might be too bright for the main article.
Aaleksanian (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
[edit]Name of student reviewer: F.Moshammad
Date of review 4/15/13
Date of review:04/24/13
Name of Editor: SRampersaud
URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:04/15/13
Date review submitted to instructor: 04/24/13
Length of edit (too long/too short): The length of edit exceeds the requirement
Image (needed/appropriate): an image would be a good addition to this edit.
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Accurate to textbook information
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A
Wikiformatting: The formatting is very good
Grammar & composition: Proper construction of edit
Other comments: Good job!
F.Moshammad (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Name of student reviewer:Hmehta0120
Date of review 4/24/2013
Name of editor: S. Rampersaud
URL of editor’s Userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SRampersaud/Interview
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page: 4/24/2013
Date review submitted to instructor: 4/24/2013
Length of edit (too long/too short): The length of the edit is excellent. You have provided enough information without overpowering the readers.
Image (needed/appropriate):N/A (See comments, in comment box)
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit):You have provided accurate information from the textbook, along with citing it.
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych): N/A
Wikiformatting: Excellent formatting, used bullet points, and italics the examples you have discussed (I would say make them bold as well, just an option will make them stand out more and more creative points)
Grammar & composition: Did Not find any errors. Their a flow to the reading well put together
Other comments: As stated earlier if you make the examples bold would look great. Also if you could find images or an image to show interviewer judgment it will add more charter to the page and more creative point. Other than that looks great. Good Luck