User talk:Clemens2868/sandbox

This is a really great draft! There were a lot of good points and sources brought in to build up this article and I enjoyed the writing style of the sections!

In "Impact on Work Environment," the sentence that says, "nor a positive or negative correlation was found," I think you could switch it to, "no correlation was found," and it would convey the same meaning. I also think that "Impact on Workplace Satisfaction" could be a good name for this section as well!

-- The wording was all updated as suggested! Thank you for the advice, some of the wording is from the original article and definitely could have been improved. Amwvtp (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

For "Sexual Harassment," I think it would be beneficial to break the section into two paragraphs. Whenever you start discussing gender and the probability of engaging in sexual harassment, I think that would be the starting point of the second paragraph. Specifically the sentence, "The results of empirical studies directly linking men high in narcissism (...)," would be the breakpoint. I really enjoyed how you phrased this section! It was clear and presented important information that it's not only men who commit sexual harassment and it's not only women who are victims of sexual harassment!

--Lexi responded to this on the user page Amwvtp (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

In "Workplace Bullying," in the first sentence, I think the USA should be removed after San Diego State University. It fits poorly and the average person would know that San Diego State University is in the United States. I also believe it would be a good idea to add a new section to the article to discuss indirect vs. direct bullying tactics. It could be as simple as making a list of the behaviors as you did in the Workplace Bullying section, but just putting it in a different format. As a reader, it was a little clunky having two large lists in parentheses close together. I think it would help clean up that sentence, and then you can continue to refer to that list the more you discuss these tactics in later sections of the article! In the last sentence, "The research done supported (...)," the word effected should be affected because affect is the action.

--The USA was removed. I think it would be better to look into the indirect vs. direct more as the article expands. At the moment, I think it works. I updated some of the wording to remove some of the clunkiness. I don't want to expand on direct vs. indirect if it distracts from the narcissism aspect of the section. Amwvtp (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Overall, this was a very good draft! You maintained a neutral tone throughout and presented solid data and evidence for the claims you presented. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot! It's also fairly relevant to my article, Machiavellianism in the Workplace! I saw a lot of parallels and similarities between the articles! Mariahvasq (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Mariah

-- Thank you for your feedback, Mariah :) Amwvtp (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a very good start! I really enjoyed reading all of the information that you retrieved from several sources. I believe you did a great job choosing the sources since they completely match the topics that you are covering.

For the first section, "Impact on work environment", I think you could do a better job when adding sources. The sentence "There tends to be a higher level of stress with people who work with or interact with a narcissist." would sound better and more credible if it was followed by a source. I also see this same "problem" in the section "Sexual harassment", where you stated, "Relevant correlations include sociosexuality, unrestricted sexuality, and extraversion.". I think that here, you should give a brief introduction about what these correlations really mean and also, include the source which you are getting this information from.

--Lexi responds to this on the 'user page' Amwvtp (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that Mariah mentioned above something about taking off the "USA", after San Diego State University in the "Workplace bullying" section. I think it is not necessary to add this and the sentence would sound smoother without it. In this same section, at the beginning of the second paragraph you stated "Research also revealed that narcissists are highly motivated to bully and that to some extent, they are left with feelings of satisfaction after a bullying incident occurs.". This statement is also unsourced, leaving the readers not knowing where you are retrieving this information from.

-- I think the sourcing issue might be coming from multiple sentences back to back that are from the same source. If I remember right from the trainings, this should be ok. Amwvtp (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The section, "Protecting against workplace narcissists" is a little hard to understand and I believe that it is not written in a neutral way. The phrase "We have had all experience with a narcissist at some point in our lives, and especially in the workplace." is not neutral since it seems like you are talking about your own experience and giving your opinion regarding this topic. It is a very good start since you have great sources to elaborate this section but I think you could rephrase some of it in order to make it sound more neutral.

Overall, I think you did a great job and did a great job including the sources that you did. Along with this, most of the article is written in a neutral way, simply stating the facts found in the sources. 131.151.252.115 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Laura Rodriguez


 * Thank you for acknowledging the "protecting against workplace narcissists" & pointing out I wasn't being neutral, I will be sure to go back and change the wording to make it sound less targeted! Meghan Lilly (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)