User talk:AustinJames/sandbox

After reviewing the wiki page "Theory X and Theory Y" I think there are many updates and additions that can be made to create a higher quality page. Below are the changes I think can be made.

- I think the introduction could be more precise. Specifically when talking about what each theory is based on.

- Under the Theory X tab - I don't like how the writer uses the word generally (we could flesh this out).

- I think having an example of a real world situation that each one of the theory's applies to would be nice to have, especially for the novice reader (this could be it's own section).

- I think the section "evaluate the workplace" could go into more detail - more about contingency theory. It does not say much or use any examples.

- I think there is room for improvement in the "McGregor and Maslow's Hierarchy of need relationship" section.

- One thing that has been brought up previously and one thing I agree with fully is the lack of sources. I think we can bring this pages rating up by finding reliable sources and adding accurate information. AustinJames (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Kassidy's peer review

 * Try to refrain from using personal pronouns such as "they" and "he." Using personal pronouns makes the tone less professional.
 * In the opening section, discuss the importance of Theory X & Y. Why is this an area of study?
 * Vary the sentence structure. Many of the sentences are short which makes the article sound choppy.
 * Citations are not consistent throughout. Some still say (need citation) others are blue, and the rest are not hyperlinked.
 * Hard approach and soft approach to Theory X should be two separate paragraphs.
 * The last sentence of the Theory X section should be rewritten or removed. The sentence implies causation. We cannot necessarily say that implementing Theory X will lead a company to higher profits.
 * I would recommend reading the opening section along with Theory X & Y out-loud as a group to try and collectively fix the sentence structure, grammar errors, and personal pronouns.
 * Be careful when you say things like "while Theory Y may seem optimal." Wiki is supposed to be objective. The management style chosen depends on 1) people 2) type of work done.
 * I would move the Maslow section to the beginning, after your opening. This is foundational and does not flow well at the end.

SteyerKS (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Danielle's peer review
Danielleroelse (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the X and Ys consistently capitol letters. I noticed one or two that were lowercase.
 * I noticed some sentences that were lacking commas where needed.
 * Try to vary your sentence structures. For example, use compound and complex sentences throughout in order to vary your length.
 * Fix citations (I noticed this was already on your list)
 * The intro paragraph could be cleaned up and more concise; I wasn't confused when reading it, but it could also be more straight forward for the reader.
 * I know this is a draft, but it was a little difficult to go through and edit because the headings didn't stick out as much against the text.
 * I would switch the "McGregor and Maslow's Hierarchy" section with the "Choosing a Management Style" section so that is it last. The "Choosing a Management Style" section seems like it is calling you to action and might be a better fit to be last in the article.
 * I agree with what Kassidy said above about most of the sentences being short and choppy. You could add semi-colons or use conjunctions (for, and, but, or, yet, so) and commas to connect two sentences together and make them flow.
 * The "McGregor and Maslow's Hierarchy" section is one large paragraph compared to the way that the other sections are structured. Maybe add in some spaces in order to break it up and make it more readable?

Emma's Peer Review
Overall, pretty good article. There was one thing I noticed that your group may want to look over and discuss. Within the first theory that you describe you refer back to McGregor numerous times. He is one of the main parts of the description, which makes sense because he created these two theories. Then, in the second theory that you talk about McGregor isn't even mentioned in there once. Why is the focus on McGregor only on one of the theories if you discuss them both and he was the main creator of these two theories? Just a thought that distracted me from the material! Yanke.emma (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Erin's Peer Review
ErinToporski (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Erin Toporski
 * There are a few run on sentences that you can fix with a comma.
 * If McGregor is extremely important to these two theories, maybe include a little more information on him or a little section of background.
 * Try not to use "they" or "he" all that often, instead you could be more descriptive. Instead of saying "They" for the theories, just say, "The two theories"
 * You only talk about McGregor in Theory X, you should also talk about him in theory Y to stay consistent as to not confuse your readers.
 * I think the introductory sentence to the Theory Y paragraph could be rewritten better. I feel like it just jumps right in, maybe start it similar to the Theory X paragraph.
 * The first x in the theory X paragraph is lower case and should be capitalized.
 * Sentence structure of the paragraphs vary greatly, maybe reread the paragraphs out loud and see what parts need change. Some sentences are run on, some are extremely short, some are long, and some aren't objective.
 * I think it would be beneficial to move the McGregor and Maslow section to the beginning of the article, that way your readers have more information about the creator right off the bat instead of just randomly at the end.