User:Skwwtr/Situational strength/Ngln92 Peer Review

General info

 * This is a Peer Review for user:Skwwtr
 * Article: User:Skwwtr/sandbox
 * The Peer Review will cover the "Situational Strength in the Workplace" section of this article

Lead

 * The lead is not the focus of the edits for this article. The focus of the user seems to lay within creating a new subheading named "Situational Strength in the Workplace"
 * To help improve this subheading, I recommend using the following syntax when creating the section in the Situational Strength article: === Situational Strength in the Workplace ===

Content

 * The content suggested is helpful towards readers' better understanding of the article and improves upon a knowledge gap that persists in the article.
 * Content comes from recent scientific studies (see Sources and References)

Tone and Balance

 * The content is fairly neutral and appears unbiased, appealing to both sides of controversy
 * Viewpoints presented add necessary information that contributes towards improving the article
 * Overall tone appears scientific and erudite

Sources and References

 * Multiple sources are mentioned but only one is reference appropriately. The other sources should be properly referenced when taking the suggested edits to the article
 * Sources are current, ranging from as old as 2008 and as recent as 2019
 * The provided link from the only referenced source works
 * There are some formatting issues with properly addressing sources in the text (see Organization)

Organization

 * While content is relevant and addresses the knowledge gap with proper scientific insight, the organization of the edits are vague and hard to understand between the two sections which seem in-congruent syntactically from one another
 * Grammar and spelling is acceptable
 * The syntax of the first section inhibits the ease of reading and the flow of the information. Consider combining shorter, weaker sentences to create fluid and easy to understand sentences.
 * Content is divided into two sections based on content and ease of reading.
 * When citing studies produced by more than two people, it is better to state the first author, followed by "et. al". An example of a revised line in the second section is as follows:
 * Original sentence: "Situational strength has been meta-analyzed by Keeler, K. R., Kong, W., Dalal, R. S., & Cortina, J. M. who found that..."
 * Suggested revised sentence: "Situational strength meta-analyzed by Keeler et. al (include date of study) found that..."

Images and Media

 * No images or media are included and do not appear relevant. If you find a useful graph or image, putting it in (if necessary) could add visual detail to the article

For New Articles Only

 * The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject - ONLY IF the references for included sources are properly included

Overall impressions

 * The content is solid and up to date and the tone and balance are neutral
 * References are needed to avoid plagiarism
 * Organization could use some work (i.e sentence structure, grammar of sources)
 * Overall good revisions