Talk:Leisure studies

Untitled
For our article on leisure studies, we are planning on making revisions that include the addition of the history of leisure studies, the top 10 colleges for this particular major, course descriptions involved, career opportunities, salary information, professional certification, various leisure activities, and any other relevant information that we feel should be included into our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think the editors of this article made a very nice contribution to this topic. The article started out very minimal, and I think they did a good job expanding upon a difficult topic. I especially like how they added headings to different sections in the article which made it much easier to follow. I also like how they added links to the specific pages about the leisure activities that they talked about, such as running, hiking, and weight living. I think the career opportunities could be expanded upon, considering the section is relatively blank at this time. I think they could have specified exactly where a degree in leisure studies will lead someone. The list of colleges is nice, but I think they could have expanded upon each college's individual program, since they could be relatively different from school to school. Overall, I think this group vastly improved this article, and made a solid contribution to the Wikipedia community. Meholper (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Plans for Revisions
For this project, we plan to break up leisure studies into several subheadings. Possible sections include history, education, activities, and careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlevi (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Overall, I feel that this group made a huge improvement to this article. I think they strengthened all sections. I like how they started the article in a very general fashion. Since, I did not have any previous knowledge on leisure studies, I liked the initial general overview. I particularly liked their contributions in the History section and their inclusion of the graph in the Career Opportunities section. I was fascinated to learn about the beginnings of this major because I have never heard of such a major before. I also really liked the graph because it gave visual interest and organization to the page. I feel that they can still further improve this article. I was intrigued by the group's very specific additions to the Education and Career Opportunities sections. I think they could expand on their list of most popular colleges for the major of Fitness, Recreation and Leisure Studies. I think it would be very interesting for the group to highlight the unique aspects of each of the programs and identify their similarities. I think they could also give some more specific roles when discussing work settings or find some prominent or influential individuals who had the major. Their improvements ameliorated Wikipedia as a source for such a huge audience. Good job! Oliviacd94 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
Be careful with your grammar. I noticed a few minor errors while I read, and I fixed the ones I saw, but the minor errors add up and they distracted me from the content of your article.

The biggest thing I noticed was the way you cited your sources. Some general comments:
 * Unless you're going to hyperlink to the study/source itself, you should add in-line citations at the end of each sentence, rather than after the thing you're specifically referencing (like in the introduction section when you mention the journals).
 * You linked to a lot of other Wikipedia articles. You don't need to link to another article every time there is a focal point in a sentence or paragraph (for example, linking to the tourism article in the education section?), and you certainly don't need to link to the same article multiple times. You linked to the sport/recreation/tourism articles almost every single time they were mentioned. You should link to articles that cover topics the reader might not be familiar with (linking to the National Recreation and Park Association was a good one) or articles that include something the reader might need to reference (such as an article on supreme court case, law, an event in history, etc). You shouldn't link to articles on general terms (like the swimming, tourism, biology, degree, etc. articles) or to articles that don't really play any big part in your article (like the examples of recreational activities, the destinations, childhood obesity, etc).

I appreciated the type of content you included, like the most popular colleges for the degree, working conditions and job statistics. I felt like I actually knew about the degree/career after reading the article, instead of just understanding the general concepts. Overall, good work!

Mkstring (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 4
I felt that the editors of this article made a large contribution. This page was very brief to start with, and after they edited I found out numerous things about leisure activities that I didn't even know existed. I found the history section to be very interesting, and I did not know about a leisure studies major prior to reading this article. However, I found that some of the contributions were lacking detail. For example, the list of colleges and professions could have been elaborated on. With the jobs it would have been nice to maybe explain what those professions do daily and how to obtain that job. For the colleges it would have been nice to maybe briefly discuss the curriculum. Also, your introduction paragraph was very beneficial, as leisure activities is not a usual subject that many people are greatly informed about. Also, I liked your numerous links provided, as it strengthened your credible edits. Overall, it was a very interesting article and they made great contributions.

krkunkel (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review #5
The editors of this article did a lot of things well in constructing their page. Format is very important in Wikipedia because it provides a general structure to the majority of articles, making readers comfortable with the information conveyed. I think the contributors broke down their discussion sections well. The intro flows well and stays concise. The education paragraph leads in nicely to the 'Career Opportunties' paragraph. The two segments help diagram possible life paths for a leisure activities major in college who intends to utilize his skills in the working community. The visual images used in the article like the list of schools with Leisure majors and the subsequent job statistics are a clear cut way of demonstrating concrete information. However, I think the history sections undermines the credibility of the article. Because there is so little History to talk about, it would be beneficial to get rid of the section and move those thoughts to other, more substantial sections.

Reading the title of this article, I thought immediately that the article contributors would have a wonderfully colorful and image filled page. Leisure activities mentioned include hiking, and nature oriented events. Therefore, this page could use some images to complement the information. Since the authors seem to have less to discuss than other articles, it would be extremely beneficial to incorporate images to complement the discussion of beautiful, outdoor activities.

Furthermore, the authors provided links to other material throughout the intro and other parts. When noting external sources within the article outside the references section, it is important to include parenthetical citations. Simply incorporating a link to other articles can demean the informative and credible tone of the article. It is a little disconcerting to provide links to other articles in the first two sentences of the page. Grammar was also a minor source of error that I saw. There were less errors after the peer editing process began, which demonstrates an acknowledgment on the part of the authors. They seemed to have made helpful revisions to their page.

Lastly, one of the main goals on wikipedia is to be informative and leave personal opinion out of the language. The article contributors did a good job remaining neutral and presenting ideas objectively. Ashanfeld (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 6
The editors of this article did a good job improving it. They included many links in their article as well as many sources, which gives their article more credibility. Before reading their article, I had never heard of leisure studies before. They did a very good job defining what it was in the introduction and kept my attention throughout the article. Using the the bullet-pointed list and the chart helped to break up some of the information and made it seem clear and simple. They could have elaborated more in several areas though. For example, even though the editors listed the job opportunities, it would be helpful to know exactly what one actually does in his/her job with a leisure studies degree. Also,the history section mainly focused on the LSA so perhaps the section should be relabeled LSA instead of History. Or perhaps the section could be expanded upon to include more history about leisure studies. One more problem was the number of grammatical errors. Though they are not very serious mistakes, there are still many of them which detracts from the article as a whole. Still, the editors did a good job educating the reader about the basics of leisure studies. Xaquamarinex20 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 7
It was apparent that this article was extremely undeveloped when you began editing the page. Thus, this group did an admirable job taking a raw and undeveloped topic and forming it into a well-detailed article. When looking at the article’s layout, there seems to be a very coherent and logical progression that takes place in discussing the topic. You did a great job remaining neutral and sourcing each of you statements, which is vital in following along with Wikipedia’s strongest principles. The article was also very well linked; this refers to various words within the text, which are hyperlinked to other Wikipedia articles However, remember to only link those words when they are relevant to the topics. Although this topic does not have much information on the web, if you could expand on some of the material, this would make it a much more relevant article. Discussing the curriculum for a college may be a way to solve this. Another thing to expand on could be the history of the program. Overall, this was a strong article given the difficulty of the topic. Tclewlow (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)