User:Binky1110/sandbox

= OB Article Evaluation = The article on Organizational Behavior discussed the topic in a somewhat vague manner. This posed as a distraction to me because in cases where i was expecting more information or examples to help me better understand what was being said there was none. The article got straight to the point sometimes, but in talking about the history of OB and discussing the early individuals who contributed to the field, the article began to stray away from what the intention was when mentioning those people. there are a few bits and pieces that can be taken out and replaced with information that is up to date as well as relevant to the topic of OB.

I wouldn't consider any of the information in this article to be out of date. however, there is a vast amount of information about the history of OB and not much about how it is being studied or any findings in the discipline of OB in present day. i also think that there may be a lot more than can be added when discussing the topics in the field of OB.

as is stated multiple times throughout this article, a lot of citations need to be added within the text. the information for parts of the article, like the topics for example, can be better organized so that readers, as well as other wikipedia editors, can read through and understand every part of the article. lastly, i think that more research should be done so that a bit more valid information on the history and topics in OB can be added to the article, making it a better source for important information on OB. Throughout this article, i see that the history is over represented in comparison to the topics in OB as well as what OB entails today. granted everything about a topic stems from its history and events in the past, but it also has to be shown how this topic has changed over time and what is being study currently, which isn't shown. despite this, the article still maintains a neutral tone and doesn't portray and specific point of view on the topic.

some, but not all, facts are referenced with a reliable source along with working citations. however, some of the citations that are present aren't really relevant to what is being said or may be a citation to a word that doesn't necessarily need to be cited. a number of the references are empirical articles that are cited properly and include their DOI, but there are some references that aren't properly cited throughout the text.

this article seems to be one of the articles that requires a lot of improvement. this article is not apart of any wikiprojects. as far as the talk page of this article, there hasn't been any commentary this year. however, between 2014 and 2016 there was a lot of talk about some biased edits that may have been removed as well as the major things that the article is lacking that are essential in an article written about OB. there is also a lot of comments on removing some things that aren't very relevant to the topic. the major difference that i saw between this article and how it was taught in class is that there are many important topics and theories that aren't included in this article. this article basically only skims the surface of what OB is really about.

= Servant Leadership Article Evaluation = From reading this article i see that everything that is written is relevant and has some type of connection to the topic of Servant Leadership. something that distracted me was the connection between servant leadership and the practices in china as well as in the christian practice. granted both of these references did portray servant leadership, but pin pointing china and the christian belief only can give off a little bias to readers. as far as outdated information, the reference about china may be the only outdated information as it dates back to 570 BCE. if this is going to be included then the article should show how, if it does, servant leadership has evolved from that time to now. the grammar in this article is a major thing that needs to be improved.

the article is neutral in the information that is being presented. however, in introducing advantages and disadvantages it may seem as if the article is in favor of servant leadership because there are a number of different advantages and references to back up those advantages, but there aren't many disadvantages and the disadvantages that are present don't have many references to support them. perhaps the idea of advantages and disadvantages can be written differently to avoid any backlash. i think there are more relevant topics/ideas that can be included in the history that can help in the explanation of Servant leadership and help readers to better understand the timeline of the concept.

the citations throughout the article are working, and the sources do support the claims that are being made. however, there are a few links that take you to an article that isn't written in english. im not sure if that follows wikipedia's rules. the references that are cited for the advantages for example, aren't just about what servant leadership is as a whole, but showing all the good things about the topic. this can be biased seeing as how these articles aren't showing the other side.

it is stated that the article has multiple issues that need attention, which is my focus for this study. as for the talk page, there has only been minor changes or suggestions as to how to improve the article. also, there hasn't been any suggestions or changes since 2014, so this article hasn't been getting much attention. the topic of servant leadership isn't discussed much differently from how we spoke about it in class. however, it differed in that we didn't talk about religion or different places like china as the article did.