Talk:Affective events theory/Archive 1

Questions
how perception impacts on our work life? how perception impacts on our career choice or career

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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Affective Events Theory → Affective events theory –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  10:57, 4 November 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.

15015OakBriar (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Hey, Wikipedians! I am demonstrating boldness and courage by attempting to transform this stub into a full-fledged wiki page. I appreciate your feedback. If there are other aspiring psychologists of every stripe out there, this is one of many pages that can be brought to full status to integrate the many applicable findings on the relationship between emotions and work to the benefit of the scientist and practitioner alike. Looking forward to your feedback and input. 15015OakBriar (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits
Hi Oakbriar! Overall I think you have made an excellent contribution to wikipedia. I have mostly made grammatical edits, and linked your page to a number of other pages on wikipedia. Careful with your sentence structure. You seem to tend towards long, run-on sentences. I find that this approach makes it challenging for the reader to clearly understand your point. You may want to consider re-wording the following sentences: I hope this was helpful! Again, I think you did an excellent job!! Cheers Dirkster07 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Section: Factors Affecting Employee Experience at Work: Check the last sentence of the paragraph. I suggest you break it into two sentences, with the first ending after the word 'overload'. This will unfortunately force you to clarify the last part... but I think it is needed.
 * Section: AET and Mood: The second sentence is awkwardly worded. Perhaps you could find another way to say "...found that the majority of 56% of the variance.."

I'm currently ~1/2 way through editing the article, but thought I'd explain a few things: Aside from all of this, I don't have too many issues so far. It's just a matter of editing, and I guess that's my responsibility now...thanks for turning a stub into an informative article! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've placed in a number of places. In some instances, it might be the case that a citation isn't needed (e.g., if 3 consecutive points are supported by one reference, it's OK if it only comes at the end). In others, it sounds as though you (or possibly another Wikipedian!) are making inferences. Wikipedians don't like this, so...be careful.
 * I removed "...and AET" from the subheadings under your discussion of the Five Factor Model, as "...and AET" appears in the higher-level heading. Seemed redundant...
 * As Dirkster mentioned, there's a number of run-on sentences. I've tried separating some info by placing it in parentheses (with e.g.,), but a lot of these seem to be style issues. It's OK to be direct/make strong assertions, as long as they're referenced. I'll keep cutting out the indirect language as I go...the transition from academic to Wikipedia-style is tough!
 * This article really needs a Lead! Even a brief, bare-bones outline'd suffice...as long as there's something for future Wikipedians to work with.
 * Wherever possible/appropriate, link to other Wikipedia articles. You've done a really good job of this, but there are still some concepts that aren't explained in the article. Internal links (is that what they're called?) would really help with this.
 * References: they're not actually linked to anything! I think I'll fix that now...

Update: I'm up to #21 on your references list. Nothing on the original page cited #15 on the reference list, so...that's why my numbers don't match up with yours. I'll finish the rest later tonight! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Update #2: Finished with the reference list. #15 appeared nowhere, there were 2 duplicates (i.e., you had the same reference cited as different numbers on two occasions), and there were 2 #36s (I think I've placed them properly, based on the surrounding text and the abstracts from the articles). I've removed your original reference list and saved it in my sandbox. Let me know if you need this! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Final Update: I've finished going through the article. I've made numerous changes throughout (apparently, I've been spending quite a bit of time on this!), but it could probably use an 'expert eye' to make sure that there hasn't been any information loss in my attempts to cut things out/make it a bit clearer.

One last thing: if there's any way that you could make "Mitigating Negative Affect Experienced from Work-Related Events" a bit shorter/clearer (for a lay audience)/more direct, that would be great. Thanks again for the great read. I've definitely learned something while editing this! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your edits and recommendations, Matthew. Much appreciated. I will go through a make the changes suggested and update the reference list to include the citiations needed. Again, very thorough job of editting that will make the page even better! 15015OakBriar (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)