User:Laurarodguez/sandbox

Everything in this article seems relevant to the topic Narcissism in the Workplace. Something that distracted me from the main topic is the subsection "Organizational Design Preferences". I believe that this information could have been added in a different subsection. The information included in this section seems to be a little repetitive when reading it since it includes narcissist attributes that are already presented in the other subsections.

I was expecting the overview section to include more relevant information about narcissism in the workplace instead of this broad information about narcissism and what it means, how you can define it, etc. Along with this, this article talks a lot about the corporate and organizational settings, kind of leading us out of the way of the main important topic, which is Narcissism in the workplace. I would like to see more information about how their leadership style looks like, how to identify it, deeper explanation on how to deal with narcissist bosses, etc

The article does not seem to be biased. There are no visible claims that falls toward a particular position. It is written by using numerous sources and from a neutral standpoint, with the purpose of explaining Narcissism in the Workplace, even though some topics are very vague.

I believe that the subsection "Impact on stress, absenteeism and staff turnover" is unrepresented. This section is as important as "Job Interviews" and comparing one to another, "Impact on stress, absenteeism and staff turnover" is half of the length. There are a lot more information that can be included in this subsection. Also, I believe that the subsection "Coping strategies for dealing with workplace narcissist" could be added in this subsection or right below it. The placement of the subsections do not seem to be in the right places. There is no a lot of harmony in this article because it feels like the person is just throwing the information out there and just expecting the readers to catch it.

During the overview, they could have used more sources to proof the information that was provided. The links of the citations included in this article work and they do support the claims and information that was included in the article. When looking at the "References" subsection, we can see that the very last citations are not cited properly. Number 42, and 43 do not seem to be completed citations, creating confusion. Besides these issues, I believe they did a great work with this because after the overview section, almost every sentence is supported by a reliable source.

The information included in this article could been more up to date. There are a lot of citations from the 90s and not too many from the 2010s. I am certain that there are many articles from the last decade that are of importance for this topic.