User talk:Ca.craft/sandbox

just confirming this is the sandbox that the realistic job preview group will be using? JButlerModaff (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Peer Review
-Audra(talk) parts confusing, not sure what it's referring to -benefits of RJP section is choppy, could use some debriefing and citations -define pros and cons in "how to create" section -good use of unbiased language -all resource links work (not dead) Kraemer.tessa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Meaning it is a basic job description that lets the future employee know the details of the job they have applied for such as pay, hours, schedule flexibility, culture." (Rewrite this so that it does not start with the word “meaning")
 * "This leads to forming bonds and building mutual trust with new employees, which will lead to a lower turnover rate, which is (normally?) high with new hires." (Maybe read article aloud and pinpoint areas that contain run-on sentences?)
 * "RJP’s also help influence the behaviors and attitudes of new hires, and is crucial when first starting in a new organization." (Who is first starting? Specify)
 * "The idea behind realistic job preview is to interchange unrealistic expectations about a job with realistic expectations. This is overall beneficial (Maybe say 'this can be beneficial' instead?) because it can lower the initial expectations the individual has for the job, and enhances the ability to cope with the new job [4]. By creating a realistic job preview, individuals indirectly develop an impression of the organization being honest and open to their potentially new employees. In turn, this improves the commitment of new employees as well as their initial job satisfaction." (Try to keep viewpoint in this section neutral)
 * Double check grammar
 * Avoid words like there’s or can’t, and instead use there is, and cannot
 * Great summary!
 * Maybe weave in a couple Wiki links when able?
 * Nice resources
 * Overall strong article! I enjoyed reading it, and I think it does a good job of capturing a reader's attention. Just a few minor tweaks and you should be set! CassieStoick (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple things i saw that could be improved would be wiki links on a couple more terms that lead readers to a better description. An example of this would be for the term, turnover rate. I think Jen said in class we didn't need a summary at all, but i could be wrong. However i do think the summary is well written. There are a few missed grammatical errors as well. Overall the article is well written. Ckammer1 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)