Template:Did you know nominations/Job attitude

Job attitude

 * ... that employees who have lower job involvement and intrinsic involvement are more likely to involve in cyber loafing behavior?
 * ALT1: ... that job attitude influences performance and not the performance, which influences attitude?
 * Comment: the reason why it is sent after 5 days is because I am new to wikipedia and I was unaware of its contingent 5 day rule of nomination. Also, due to other responsibilities, I was offline for a couple of days and didnt get a chance to review the deadlines for it to be nominated.Khyati Gupta (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Guptakhy (talk). Nominated by Guptakhy (talk) at 05:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)



Greetings. Sufficient changes made. Kindly reconsider the nomination. Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Assuming we allow the very late nomination against rules... no QPQ required and long enough. Article is completely supported by inline sources.
 * Symbol question.svg I'm having some real problem with the article wording. "A research was done to examine weather attitudes towards cyber loafing and other loafing behavior follows the actual behavior of cyber loafing. " is an example of this.  The article doesn't explain who did this research, why this research matters, what other research says.  The article ends up talking not so much about the topic involved but about this research.  It gives the article a very WP:ESSAY feel.  This needs to be less essay like. --LauraHale (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the source from the section "Global job attitude". While I cannot access the source, nothing in the abstract at all suggests the article has a global perspective. "A conclusion was made that through emotional exhaustion, interpersonal conflict affect job attitudes." this statement feels essay like.  "A research done by Mark Smith and Jonathan Canger used the five factor model of personality"  Why is this particular bit of research being cited here?  The repeated random citing of sources is not particularly summary like and gives the article an essay like feel.  "It was concluded that the personality of the supervisor has a greater effect on subordinate satisfaction with supervision than the more general work-related attitudes."  This statement also gives it an essay like feel, that rather than report on what job attitude is, we're cherry picking research to make an argument. "The results show evidence of various personalities of a supervisor related to the job attitudes of the employees"  What results?  Why is this whole section dependent on this one study and how exactly does it connect to the article topic? "Data aggregation was done and through constant testing, results showed that it is the job attitude that influences performance and not the performance influencing attitude."  This is completely without context and is in its own section.  What does it refer to? "The effects of job attitudes and turnover was analyzed using sample of 297 males working to maintain railroad."  This sounds like an essay.  What does this have to do with the topic?  What study does this refer to?  Why does whatever study this is about matter? The article needs to be reworked to get rid of the WP:ESSAY like feel. --LauraHale (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It feels like you're holding this to a much higher standard than is proper for DYK. This isn't GAN or FAC. Silver  seren C 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * * I don't think I'm holding it to a much higher standard at all. The apparent selective use of various studies that are presented as reporting on results of an study instead of the article topic create WP:NPOV problems and violate WP:ESSAY. WP:NPOV is one of the criteria for WP:DYK. --LauraHale (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave it an edit focusing on that issue as well as on copyediting; I don't believe the article creator has had a chance to assess those changes yet, but maybe I've moved the article towards what's needed and that can help identify what more needs to be done? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * References to studies need to clearly state who did the study or be presented in a way other than "a study." Things like "A meta-analysis showed that it is job attitude that influences performance, and not performance that influences attitude." are also essay like. What is the context for this?  Also, can you find "Judge, Timothy A.; Kammeyer-Mueller, John D. (10 January 2012). "Job Attitudes". Annual Review of Psychology" and verify that it is talks about the global perspective?  The abstract didn't make this clear at all and the authors are all USA based. The essay like parts and the use of these studies has other problems as they possibly relate to WP:MEDRS, which makes it even more problematic to have the essay like framing found in here.  (This should be fixable as another student medical article passed.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took "global" as meaning "overall" (as opposed to attitude toward aspects of one's job) rather than "worldwide", but I, too, would have liked to be able to see that article and a few others. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed up all the references, if that helps at all. Silver seren C 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I can send you a copy of the annual review through e-mail or through any other requested medium. That review is legit and does include "Gobal" job attitude information. I didnt look over its abstract as it is an annual review and is incredibly detailed. It is difficult to judge an annual review of a certain topic through an abstract. And yea, global does mean overall and not worldwide. After I am done my final wiki project which is here, if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guptakhy/Guptakhy-Sandbox_2-Cognitive_vulnerability, I will sit down and deal with this. But for now, if it helps in any way to send out that annual review, please ping back. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think the above issues are really something that's that big of a deal for DYK and I definitely don't feel like the article reads like an essay. It reads like what it is, a very general topic that is hard to properly split up into sections and discuss. But I think the article does a fairly decent job at doing that. Silver seren C 22:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel stuck. What should I do? Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Article has been tightened up and author is prepared to provide a copy of key refs. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What does that mean? Also, I just got a chance to make more edits to the article. Please see the sufficient changes and tell me what else exactly that needs to be done for this article to be eligible for a DYK. Thank you for all of your help and effort. Khyati Gupta (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I suppose it is a bit cryptic; the red bendy arrow symbol means I'm calling for someone to review the article again (either the original reviewer or someone else) :-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So that means whatever we went through, we will go through it all over again? Should I renominate the article? Khyati Gupta (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noooooo :-) It just means "Somebody please look at this, it's ready to be re-evaluated." Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks! :D I guess I will lurk around and see any updates pop up. Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I am currently too involved in the article's edits to review here and my opinion is more or less outlined above, I might as well make it explicit and say that I feel this article is good to go, the essay tag should be removed and it should be passed. That's my opinion anyways. Silver  seren C 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Re-evaluation is still needed :( Khyati Gupta (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg I'm passing this DYK. Reviewing the above discussion; I agree that LauraHale appears to have a very different idea of what the standards are for DYK than a lot of other people. We do not require a global perspective. We are not GAN, or FAC, or Peer Review, or A-class review, or any of those places. As someone who has over 200 DYKs, I would expect you to know that. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For hook, I'd go for a sort of ALT 2: ... that job attitude influences performance, rather than the other way around? Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since reviewers should not approve their own proposed hooks, I'll note that the ALT2 hook comes from the article and a source is cited at the end of the relevant sentence, the abstract of which seems to support it. I've struck the similar yet problematic ALT1. What I don't know from the above is whether the original hook has been checked against sourcing and approved, or if only ALT2 is okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

and we need another review for its source to be approved. Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Reviewed. All ready to go for DYK. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Horray! Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)