User talk:Binky1110/sandbox

=Sandboxes in userpages= One of the best things about Wikipedia is that you can copy markup code from other pages to your own.

For example, on my user page is sandbox which is a stash of an old class (it's toward the bottom). I copied an article there so while I worked on it. You may also notice that there is a sandbox, in a sandbox in my userpage!

This

User:Dr_Ashton/sandbox: stash of old class

creates the sandbox on your userpage.

Is this the question you asked on email? Dr Ashton (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

= OB Article Evaluation = The article on Organizational Behavior discussed the topic in a somewhat vague manner. This is a great intro sentence to a paragraph. The problem is you don't use it as a intro sentence, the rest of the paragraph discusses different topics. You know that the article is vague (and I trust you), but you probably couldn't describe to yourself why it is vague. College level writing requires you to think more deeply and writing can help you think more deeply. Why is it vague? What are your top reasons to feel this? This posed as a distraction to me because in cases where i was expecting more information or examples to help me better understand what was being said there was none. This is the only reason you gave as to why you thought it was vague. The article got straight to the point sometimes, Well, tell me (as well as telling yourself) by doing so you have a list of things it does right but in talking about the history of OB and discussing the early individuals who contributed to the field, the article began to stray away from what the intention was when mentioning those people. What did you see as the page's intention? It's hard to tell why the history/people detracted from the intention when you don't tell the reader what you think it is. there are a few bits and pieces that can be taken out and replaced with information that is up to date as well as relevant to the topic of OB.

I wouldn't consider any of the information in this article to be out of date. h owever, there is a vast amount of information about the history of OB and not much about how it is being studied or any findings in the discipline of OB in present day. i also think that there may be a lot more than can be added when discussing the topics in the field of OB.

a s is stated multiple times throughout this article, a lot of citations need to be added within the text. the information for parts of the article, like the topics for example, can be better organized so that readers, as well as other wikipedia editors, can read through and understand every part of the article. lastly, i think that more research should be done so that a bit more valid information on the history and topics in OB can be added to the article, making it a better source for important information on OB.

I'll stop editing here. But the edits I added are all about college level writing. You wrote well, but you wrote mainly about your impressions. College level writing begins with your impressions, but then you must elaborate on your impressions, explain them and present examples. Start thinking in terms of a structure paragraph. When you force yourself to write structured paragraphs, you teach yourself to think in a structured and organized way.

A paragraph has three parts and each part serves one of three different functions. Paragraphs should have a first sentence which introduces the reader to the topic of the paragraph. Sometimes the first sentence will be a paragraph hook or another type of transition which helps the reader follow the jump between the preceding paragraph and the current paragraph. The middle sentences of a paragraph are called body sentences and they should all support the topic presented in the first sentence. The body sentences, besides supporting the topic sentence, provide your reader with the information you wish to convey. Finally, the last sentence in the paragraph is a concluding sentence. The concluding sentence recalls the topic sentence and some information of the body sentences. The three parts of a paragraph, the topic, body and concluding sentences work together to help you express your ideas.

Topic sentence A paragraph has three parts and each part serves one of three different functions.

Body sentences
 * Paragraphs should have a first sentence with introduces the reader to the topic of the paragraph.
 * Sometimes the first sentence will be a paragraph hook or other type of transition which helps the reader follow the jump between the preceding paragraph and the current paragraph.
 * The middle sentences of a paragraph are called body sentences and they should all support the topic presented in the first sentence.
 * The body sentences, besides supporting the topic sentence, provide your reader with the information you wish to convey.
 * Finally, the last sentence in the paragraph is a concluding sentence. The concluding sentence recalls the topic sentence and some information of the body sentences.

Concluding sentence The three parts of a paragraph, the topic, body and concluding sentences work together to help you express your ideas.

Throughout this article, i see that the history is over represented in comparison to the topics in OB as well as what OB entails today. granted let's start tightening up on the grammar, capitalize the first letter of a sentence everything about a topic stems from its history and events in the past, but it also has to be shown how this topic has changed over time and what is being study currently, which isn't shown. despite this, the article still maintains a neutral tone and doesn't portray and specific point of view on the topic.

some, but not all, facts are referenced with a reliable source along with working citations. however, some of the citations that are present aren't really relevant to what is being said or may be a citation to a word that doesn't necessarily need to be cited. a number of the references are empirical articles that are cited properly and include their DOI, but there are some references that aren't properly cited throughout the text.

this article seems to be one of the articles that requires a lot of improvement. this article is not apart of any wikiprojects. as far as the talk page of this article, there hasn't been any commentary this year. however, between 2014 and 2016 there was a lot of talk about some biased edits that may have been removed as well as the major things that the article is lacking that are essential in an article written about OB. there is also a lot of comments on removing some things that aren't very relevant to the topic. the major difference that i saw between this article and how it was taught in class is that there are many important topics and theories that aren't included in this article. this article basically only skims the surface of what OB is really about.

Blue ink courtesy of Dr Ashton (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

= Servant Leadership Article Evaluation = From reading this article i see that everything that is written is relevant and has some type of connection to the topic of Servant Leadership. Ever hear of the term, 'damning with faint praise?' That's what your first sentence is doing. It's like you are evaluating a persons and you say 'they metabolize oxygen' ! something that distracted me was the connection between servant leadership and the practices in china as well as in the christian practice. granted both of these references did portray servant leadership, but pin pointing china and the christian belief only can give off a little bias to readers. as far as outdated information, the reference about china may be the only outdated information as it dates back to 570 BCE. if this is going to be included then the article should show how, if it does, servant leadership has evolved from that time to now. That's right and here is where you get the closest to using good paragraph structure -- you gave the reader several reasons why you felt references to China and Christianity are problematic. The thing is, S-L has definite Eastern and Christian philosophic foundational elements. This was intentional on the part of Greenleaf when he developed the theory. I think the editor's problem was that they tried to describe S-L as independent from Greenleaf. You can't; he created it. But you can look for and describe ideas which came before Greenleaf which influenced him (Eastern philosophy and Quaker theology). the grammar in this article is a major thing that needs to be improved. This is a topic sentence sitting at the end of a paragraph. It does conclude your paragraph's ideas; it actually introduces new ones. Can you list or summarize the grammatical problems?

the article is neutral in the information that is being presented. however, in introducing advantages and disadvantages it may seem as if the article is in favor of servant leadership because there are a number of different advantages and references to back up those advantages, but there aren't many disadvantages and the disadvantages that are present don't have many references to support them. perhaps the idea of advantages and disadvantages can be written differently to avoid any backlash. i think there are more relevant topics/ideas that can be included in the history that can help in the explanation of Servant leadership and help readers to better understand the timeline of the concept.

the citations throughout the article are working, and the sources do support the claims that are being made. however, there are a few links that take you to an article that isn't written in english. im not sure if that follows wikipedia's rules. the references that are cited for the advantages for example, aren't just about what servant leadership is as a whole, but showing all the good things about the topic. this can be biased seeing as how these articles aren't showing the other side.

it is stated that the article has multiple issues that need attention, which is my focus for this study. as for the talk page, there has only been minor changes or suggestions as to how to improve the article. also, there hasn't been any suggestions or changes since 2014, so this article hasn't been getting much attention. the topic of servant leadership isn't discussed much differently from how we spoke about it in class. however, it differed in that we didn't talk about religion or different places like china as the article did.

More blue ink from Dr Ashton (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

=Final Thoughts on 9/9 work= Are you checking to make sure you do everything required? Are you going down this list:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — Dr Ashton (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC).

You are hitting some things and not others in your reviews. We can improve articles only if we are systematic.

And finally, you should put some hierarchical structure in your user page. If you keep going like you are, serially adding to the bottom of your userpage, very shortly it will be hard to find your work. I've suggested linking sandboxes off your main userpage. See how I do that on my userpage.

Dr Ashton (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Servant leadership
Larry Spears -Larry spears was the president of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. He was a great fit for this position as he had years of experience in the field of organizational leadership along with numerous other sub-fields that dealt with organizations and their upbringing. He carried on the ideas of Greenleaf and expanded the belief of Servant Leadership into different countries. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130010101Binky1110 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)