User talk:B j36

Peer Review 3316
The lead section offers useful and clear information about the topic, however, does not summarize a majority of the information in the sections beneath it. Furthermore, it could definitely use some cleaning up and would look better if flowed more smoothly. The key points of the article as I understand them begin with the “other similar commissions” section which presumably offers other reformation ideas that would allow an individual to research for further understanding of what these commissions are made to accomplish. The next section is "History” which tells the reader how the organization was founded and the goals and purpose of the organization. Following this is the impact of the organization on different aspects of government. I believe the contribution certainly offers sufficient information for the topic at hand as the new text is relevant and offers greater understanding of the organization. The points presented are well supported with referenced material from credible sources. The article seems to bounce around between the topic at hand and oftentimes gets too detailed in the linked ideas of which the organization has impacted or has been impacted by. Nevertheless, the information presented is backed by scholarly support. The contribution has a neutral perspective of the organization, offering only basic research that offers an understanding of the organizations history and how it was ran. The tone provides complete view points and is also neutral. I have not come across any nuances and subtle distinction that need to be clarified. The claims proposed and included are all backed with appropriate references. The sources are in depth, offer a neutral perspective, and have references of their own. Many of the references presented have a sufficient amount of source that would allow a researcher to feel confident about the information presented. The neutral point of view that the article presents seems to only make claims that are backed by factual evidence. The biggest problem of neutrality the article faces is that some key ideas are given more treatment than others. In spite of this, I do believe that the long sections need to be long and those short are rightfully short. To my knowledge, the language in the article is presented free of passive voice and grammatical errors. The article does seem like it may need to be proofread or as though this step was not carried out during the making of this article. The entry does seem to be something a variety of individuals can understand. There may be some terms that should be clarified to individuals who are not familiar with the public sector. For the most part, the structure of the article is clear and the use of heading and subheadings mostly well. The section that discusses the impact of the organization is somewhat of an eye sore, however, and some revision should be considered. The formatting of the article agrees with Wikipedia guidelines and is also executed well. All in all, I like that the new members have added reliable sources to the material and that there is now a greater understanding of some sections that were not necessarily clear beforehand. The article may be improved by adding additional information to several key elements in order to offer a better understanding. Also, someone should sit down and read over the article to ensure that the language and formatting is done in the best way possible.

Peer Review 3318
The lead section of the article includes a useful and clear overview of what is to come in the remainder of the article. The main elements of the article include History, contract formation, stages in career development, and contract breach. The contribution adds a multitude of sources that were otherwise absent from the article. The sources offer relevant material that gives the reader a sufficient understanding of what a psychological contract is and the details of implementation. The points drawn out by the writers are backed by evidence from credible sources. The topic of the article is very clear and the scholarly support included is very much appropriate. The contributions maintain a very neutral perspective from several scholars and maintains an appropriate tone throughout. There are no noticable nuances or distinctions that need clarification from what I can see. All claims provided are backed by a decent amount of reliable references. All of the information in the article is referenced properly and there are links to the articles used in order to offer an opportunity for further research. The point of view of the article is consistently neutral on all viewpoints and relies heavily on factual ideas. The coverage in the article seems to be weighted properly and appropriately. The articles material is crafted in such a way that readers from different walks of like should be able to comprehend. The struct and format of the article is very clear and precise. The headings and subheadings in the article are used properly. All in all, I mostly like that the new writers have added many more sources compared to what was originally present in the article. I would improve the breach section that is limited in information and add more sources to that section as well.