User talk:Amcctx94/sandbox

Peer Review
Overall I think y’all created a really good foundation for this article, and I think the direction you’re taking the article is clear. The introductory paragraphs spell out what you’re going to be talking about later in the article and explain why Mary Parker Follett is important. The main points of the article as I understand them is that Follett contributed greatly to organizational theory and behavior and is considered to be the mother of modern management. All of this was gleaned from the introductory paragraphs, which is great! I don’t think that the article includes sources from a variety of scholars and points of view, but I’m not sure how you would achieve that when you’re basically writing a short biography on her life. The scholars that you do cite seem to be very reputable, and I think the number of citations you include is perfect. It seems to be a well-balanced article that doesn’t assert opinions as facts. I think the “work” section could benefit from a little more work, because it doesn’t seem to have as much information as the other sections.

I think the entry is written relatively well. There are a few typos, but this is a first draft so I wasn’t expecting everything to be perfect. Just remember to avoid using passive voice and overly complex language. The article is structured and organized well, and it has a clear focus. The biggest thing I think y’all need to work on is the formatting. Throughout the article I found attempts to format that didn’t succeed. In my group, we picked someone who was familiar with coding and their job is to code the entire page. I don’t know if there’s anyone in your group that would be willing to do that, but that’s proved very effective for us. The rough draft of the article doesn’t include any pictures yet, and there aren’t any links to other entries or related topics. Still some work to do, but I’m excited to see the completed article page! H.k.d.29 (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

——

I think that the additions that you've made to the page for Follett overall is a a good start to filling out the page as a whole. I appreciate that you've started to fill out more of her history and background information in the introduction since the current page is really sparse. Also I appreciate the organization of the information such as expanding on and making it's own section for early life and education. However I feel like we should keep wary about only focusing on background information since I feel the most important information should be related to the work Follett achieved and theories placed and both the current page and the contributions posted now aren't as filled out as it could be. But since it's a rough draft it's completely understandable. What's written so far is pretty clear, I'm understanding overall who Follett was and how they contributed to organizational theory.

Your sources seem well researched, my suggestion would be that since Follett has published work, they can be used as sources to fill out her theories and work section. Also, maybe give summaries to her pieces? (You could use a table!) I looked at your coding and I'm assuming that your formatting at the moment is purposeful. I can understand, it just makes it rough looking to read though. Otherwise I think y'all are on the right track! —Khp10 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

——

I think the article is at a good jumping off point. The original article lacks crucial information that I see you guys are working towards filling in. After reviewing your edits, I have a few recommendations about your work so far. Consider revising- Take a look at grammar throughout your edits. A few grammatical errors are natural, but some sentences lose their strength because they are difficult to understand. For example, "Mary Parker Follet had a younger brother, her parents were Charles Allen and Elizabeth Curtis (Baxter) Follett. They were of English-Scottish and Welsh decent." could be revised for more clarity.

Most of the article has good facts with sufficient references. However i found one or two opinionated statements that you may want to edit. "Along with Lillian Gilbreth, Mary Parker Follett was one of two great women management gurus in the early days of classical management theory, and she is regarded by some writers as the “mother” of Modern Management.". This is a great point, but the word choice needs to be changed.

Personally I wold like to read a little more on her ideas and influences. There is a good base a information there, but I'm interested in understanding the significance of her ideas. The section co�uld also use a couple more references, this will allow readers to reachers her ideas from the original sources.

Despite a few grammatical errors and a need for more information, the article serves as a great starting point. The structure of the article is effective and you guys added some good information to a wiki that needed it badly.

Trevorcallarman (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In my peer review, I have noticed that the article needs some mechanical editing throughout, for example in the lead paragraph, Marys needs to be changed to Mary's and lifes to life's etc. and there are some punctuation errors that need review as well. The lead paragraph contains good information but could definitely be stronger and introduce the main points of the article more efficiently. I think the lead paragraph should highlight Mary Parker Follet's legacy as a whole and touch on the main points of the article. I believe the Ideas/Influences Section could be improved by including concrete, easily defined ideas that Follet has developed in her work if possible. The Ideas/Influences section currently does not allow readers to gain a very complete understanding of what Mary Parker Follet advocated or 'is about.'

Facts in the article are supported by citations for the most part, except for family lineage, I believe that needs to be cited. The topic of the article is clearly focused but could use more 'beefing up' on details if possible, especially in the "Work" section. Tone throughout the article is professional and unbiased thus it confines to Wikipedia's expectation of neutrality. Not all claims are supported with references, although most are. Areas that I noticed lacking citation are family lineage information, "works", and "later life & legacy." There is an adequate number of references and they all seem to be reliable sources. Overall, the language throughout the article is clear although there are some grammatical errors throughout. The article is generally clear and well-written. It is accessible for people of different origins and education levels although there are some field-specific terms used, it is kept to a minimum. Formatting is organized and well-directed. There are links where appropriate and relevant. I'd say this article is thorough but needs some extra proofreading and group should work on tying together main ideas throughout. Natashaliu1993 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)