User talk:DL Yang/sandbox

Pre peer review
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback

Name of student reviewer
 * Replace with username for version on talk page**	Joan Bailey

Date of review	5/16/2013

Name of editor
 * Replace with username for version on talk page**	Yangchen Lama

URL of editor’s Userpage	 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DL_Yang/sandbox

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page	May 16, 2013

Date review submitted to instructor	5/116/2013

Length of edit (too long/too short)	The length of the edit is good.

Image (needed/appropriate)	N/A

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit)	Textbook information is accurately edited.

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed	The article is empirical

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)	The information presented relates to I/o psych

Wikiformatting	Formatting is good

Grammar & composition	Grammar and composition is good

Other comments	Nice job

Joan Bailey (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

POST PEER REVIEW
Post-Edit Peer Review Form Name of Student Reviewer:	Paula Guthrie Date of Review	17/05/2013 Name of editor	DL Yang URL of editor’s Userpage	 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DL_Yang URL of Wikipedia article	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership

Reference page number in Schultz & Schultz

Permanent URL on PsycInfo of article

Item	Points	Points Earned

Evidence of posting ahead of the edit on the talk page	1 point	0

Signed post on talk page	1 point	0

Each response to questions on talk page	1 point	0

Sandbox with intended edit	1 point	1

Number of sentences in edit 	1 point	6

Appropriate image in edit	1 point	0

Appropriate link to another Wikipedia page or external page	1 point	1

Textbook based reference information correct	1 point	1

Research article based reference information correct	1 point	1

Research article is empirical	1 point	0

Research article is peer-reviewed	1 point	0

Research article is primary	1 point	1

Reference and footnote formatted correctly	1 point	1

Each response on talk page after edit	1 point	0

Student made changes to article in response to editor comment	1 point	0

Each editor change to student’s edit	minus 1 point

Fancy formatting (1 point for each up to 3 points for each: new section w/ heading; bulleted list; numbered list etc)	3 points	2

Total	---	14

Joan Bailey (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)