Talk:Job rotation

Untitled
Job rotation is typically taught in business school classes in organization design. I'm sorry that I really don't have time to fix up the writing, but to give a clue of a direction to start, try searching on "job rotation" and "tavistock". The idea of job rotation came up through the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, in about the same time as the Trist and Bamford studies on coal mining. Daviding (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Job Rotation
Hello, I am Vimmy, I am part of  Psychology I/O, Spring, 2013 provided by York College taught by my professor, User:Dr_Ashton. As a part of our class assignment we are required to make an edit on a Wikipedia article that we think needed to be edited. Here is a link to my sandbox User:VIMMYSEAJATAN/Job_Rotation, I want to add additional information to the Job rotation section of this article. Please visit my sandbox to view the content Vimmy (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Jo ann, and I took professor Ashton's class a few years ago. I made this page during the class and just happened to check on it today. I noticed you made a few changes. I don't have a problem with that as long as you make it better than it was. I am wondering if the professor pointed you to this page purposely or if you found it on your own. Best wishes!! 8.28.19.75 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Updating
Hello, I'm going to be updating the Job Rotation wiki page in the next couple of days as part of a Public Administration project under Dr. Hanks at Texas State University. I will be updating information and sources as well as integrating current information into the new page.Karlbarl13 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi, I will be submitting a review of this Wikipedia article to fulfill the requirements of Dr. Hanks' Public Admin. class.

COMPREHENSIVENESS

a) Content: Other than lacking a reference to the differentiation between the public and private sector, the lead section provides an excellent overview on the topic of job rotation. The article as a whole also does a great job in weighing the pros and cons of those main aspects, which I understand to be employees and employers (private and public). The only thing I think could add to the article would be a better understanding of what job rotation actually is. Aside from this, the article covers the issues and debates of job rotation with sufficient references. b) Focus: the issues and debates are the main focus of the article which are shown as pros and cons. Most of these also provide scholarly support to back these claims. c) Representativeness: Job rotation covers a wide range of issues so it is good that the article relies on a large variety of sources to back these claims. It also ensures that each side of the issue is fairly represented so the reader can have the best understanding possible.

SOURCING

All-in-all, the sourcing of the article was done very well. The claims did not directly state that certain things would happen with job rotation. Instead, they claimed that certain things could happen, and referenced their reasoning for doing so.

NEUTRALITY

Because the article has good sources, it is also able to stay generally neutral. It is able to demonstrate how beneficial job rotation can be while also provides the “drawbacks” that come with those benefits.

READABILITY

a) Language: Aside from small grammatical errors, the article is written very well. The simple language makes it very easy to understand and follow the train of thought. It makes it so the reader can know how a claim makes sense, rather than just having to take the articles word for it. b) Organization: The organization is very clear and follows as what is does, why it’s done, and the pros and cons for workers, public employers, and private employers. Each section is similar in size but still contain enough information to appropriately cover the topic. c) Formatting: The article follows the proper formatting style required for Wikipedia enteries. Sections are clearly labeled and contain links to relevant outside information d) Illustrations: Though there is only one illustration, it still provides a good enough understanding to stand alone. The citation in the caption is lengthy, but the title gives a good representation of the illustrations contents.

Question 1) I like how the group identified the pros and cons of both the employees and employers. It is easy to understand why one side would want to do something beneficial for themselves, so it is good to see benefits and drawbacks for both sides.

Question 2) One improvement I think the article needs is to add real-world examples of job rotation between different jobs. Another would be to add relevant illustrations to the article to make it more engaging for the reader. As it is now, the article seems like a big mass of information. I would like to see more illustrations like the one they did include.

B H71 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Comprehensiveness: The content is solid and gives the reader a clear idea of what Job Rotation is and breaks it down into Private and Public sectors. The article has good focus and scholarly support with a several different perspectives mostly divided by benefits and drawbacks but could be improved by adding more examples in all the sections to add more depth

Sourcing: The sourcing is good overall but only the first five sources in the References section are referenced in the article (with links) so I am not sure how they were used.

Neutrality: The article does a good job of staying neutral by simply stating known benefits and drawbacks. The balance is in favor of the Private Sector section over the Public sector section.

Readability: This article is very readable and has a strong organization. The Goals Sections is not needed I recommend taking “Why is job rotation beneficial?” and adding it under the Objectives section. In the Private Sector section there is a subsection for Cost of Job Rotation that seems unnecessary to have as an extra title or maybe it’s missing a link. In the References section the last 6 references are formatted differently than the first 5.

Question 1: The topic is easy to follow and understand and the organization is very clear.

Question 2: The article does need more examples Job rotation in the real world to tie to specific points that the article points too and the minor formatting issues mentioned ab

Mr.Haynes30 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Peer Review #3"

-Comprehensiveness- The Article its self was very easy to read and portrayed in a very professional manner. One could easily read the first paragraph and have a decent understanding and comprehension of the matter at hand.

-Sourcing is very well used, however, only the first five were truly used. I feel as though the sources have a high value and should be used more often.

-Neutrality- The Article is very well balanced on both sides of the spectrum, but could go into more depth on both sides in order for the reader to have a better grasp.

-Readability- As stated, the article is well written and easy to understand. The page is also very well organized which allows to flow very well.

Question 1: I really enjoy this page primarily due to the fact that it extremely easy to understand, and organized very well.

Question 2: Some improvements could be made by referring to more examples of job rotation, using more sources, and going into slightly more detail under the "benefits" and "drawbacks" heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crc151 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
-Comprehensiveness- a) The lead sections content offers a very clear understanding of the topic. I understand the key points of the article to be "what job rotation is, how employers practice this technique and why, and the drawbacks and benefits to using job rotation." The article contains sufficient evidence and content that is relevant to my understanding of the topic of the page. b) I think that the focus of the article is clear and the citations are done extremely well throughout the article. c) There are several sources that have been considered in the article so it is good you have strayed from a single point of view. I especially like the offered information of "drawbacks and benefits" so that the reader is not to think that there are only one or the other when using this technique.

-Sourcing- a)With the exception of one or two statements I believe everything is cited and sourced properly. The language is precise and the rhetoric of the statements are all relatively clear and organized.

-Neutrality- a) The article does a great job keeping a neutral point of view from the authors. I especially like the use of offering positive and negatives of the implemented tool as I previously mentioned.

-Readability- a) The article over all has clear "readability" the language may be slightly too advanced for someone very uneducated on the topic, however I believe anyone looking at this page should not have any issues assessing what is currently posted, great job! b) Overall the article is organized very positively to the reader. It is very space friendly and offers both verbal as well as visual information. c) Very good use of linkage to other Wiki's so the readers can take a more in depth look at certain things they need to. d) The image is appropriate as far as my understanding and is clear to view.

-Questions- 1) My favorite part of this page is its extremely easy readability, and its vast use of further wiki links within its own page. 2) Two changes you could consider are possibly adding a second visual aid to the page, and maybe looking at the titles, I feel like certain subtitles that are "bolded" stand out more than the topic title. Patrick Kiefer (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.227.109 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)