User talk:Aisha Hamid/sandbox

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Name of student reviewer: F.Moshammad

Date of review 4/24/13

Date of review:04/24/13

Name of Editor: Aisha Hamid

URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aisha_Hamid

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:04/24/13

Date review submitted to instructor: 04/24/13

Length of edit (too long/too short): The length of edit exceeds the requirement

Image (needed/appropriate): putting an image is not necessary for this edit.

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Accurate to textbook information

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A

Wikiformatting: The formatting is good

Grammar & composition: Proper construction of edit

Other comments: Good job! you can use more formatting details such as bullet lists or numbered lists for additional credit.

F.Moshammad (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback:

Name of student reviewer: Hmehta0120

Date of review:4/24/2013

Name of editor:Aisha Hamid

URL of editor’s Userpage:	 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aisha_Hamid/sandbox

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page: 4/24/2013

Date review submitted to instructor: 4/24/2013

Length of edit: I think the information you have planned to add to the page is well stated and, the information you have said is very important for someone who plans on pursuing a master in the I/O field. Image: Looking at the page doesn't seem as if anyone has added images and I personally think you don't need one. Review of textbook information: The information you have provided does very much match the textbook, and I like how you showed that you used information from the page twice.

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych): N/A

Wikiformatting: What you plan on to add to the article follows it’s layout.

Grammar & composition: Read it twice and didn't seem to catch any grammatical errors.

Other comments: I very much liked the information that you plan on to add, also something to look into is how to make it more creative such as bullet points, numbers, bold and etc…and also if that requires more information I don’t think it will be too much information. Other than that looks great. Good Luck

Hmehta0120 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Name of student reviewer: Jasmine R Basnight

Date of review 4/25/13

Date of review:04/25/13

Name of Editor: Aisha Hamid

URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aisha_Hamid

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:04/24/13

Date review submitted to instructor: 04/24/13

Length of edit (too long/too short): The length of edit is fine

Image (needed/appropriate): N/A

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Accurate to textbook information

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A

Wikiformatting: The formatting is fine

Grammar & composition: Proper construction of edit

Other comments: Good job!

MsPsychology (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Name of student reviewer:Hmehta0120 Date of review: 5/6/2013 Name of editor: Aisha Hamid URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aisha_Hamid/sandbox&action=edit

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page: 5/06/2013 Date review submitted to instructor: 5/06/2013 Length of edit: The length of edit seems great to me. Provide great amount of information briefly. Image (needed/appropriate):I found the image very appropriate. As a famous quote says picture worth 1000 words your image very much justifies. Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): The information you have provided is very much relevant to the topic of the text (article) Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: Great article choice and it is empirical, primary and peer reviewed. Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych):I am aware of this article (b/c I also have used it) and the information in the article is very much accurate to I/O. In addition the article uses a case study as a example to combine both of these theories.

Wikiformatting:	Format is great and will flow through the article. And also the use of bullet point is great.

Grammar & composition: Great! Seems well put together.

Other comments:	Great use of creativity. The bullet points, the use of the image you have planned to use is great! Ironically this is the same article I plan on to edit as well and related very much to what I plan onto add. Good Luck!

Hmehta0120 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Azahur (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)