User talk:Tjtilot/sandbox

Claire Geertsen's Peer Review: 1. Reword or fix grammar in very first sentence (workplace relationship definition). Overall there needs to be complete editing in the first paragraph, as well as spelling errors need to improve
 * PLEASE WRITE ON TALK PAGE WHEN THE GROUP'S EDITS HAVE BEEN POSTED

2. Play with the formatting (headings, sub-headings) to give the article a "prettier" look.

3. Real-life workplace examples could be added

Morgan Bergeron's Peer Review: Introduction: I think the introduction could be improved by removing statements that are also in other parts of the article such as the part about working 50 hours per week and loneliness. I also think that an overview of the whole article would help. For example, listing what types of workplace relationships exist and what the article covers. Lastly, I think getting rid of the sentence beginning "studies have shown" would make your information seem more credible. Workplace Friendships: First, there are grammar and wording errors to be fixed, which is minor :) Also, if there is any way that the direct quote of the friendship definition could be removed and replaced with a summarized definition, I think that would be better for wiki-writing style. Workplace Loneliness: I feel as if the second paragraph doesn't really belong under the heading of loneliness. Maybe that information could be combined in workplace relationships? I'm not sure how, but it could use reorganization of ideas. Overall, your group has a great start. You have already greatly improved the first part of this article and just have small things to think about changing. I can tell this will be an excellent article when it's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganBergeron (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim Smaciarz's Peer Review: 1. Small grammatical errors that will be easy to fix with a rewrite. 2. I thought you did a great job of remaining neutral and delivering information objectively 3. I like the examples of relationships in both America and China, but perhaps another example from additional countries/regions would strengthen your article 4.I really liked your examples from research, but maybe try to find a real-life example from one or two of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSmaciarz (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

James Rasmussen's Peer Review: Strengths: Overall, your team did a great job with the neutral tone of voice. Many credible sources were also added in order to improve the article which was great! The examples that you added helped the reader understand some of the concepts that were being conveyed throughout. Lastly, it was encouraging to see that you added citations very often throughout the article. Many good sources already exist in the article, which made it very encouraging that your team was willing to look for more sources to add to the articles credibility. Weaknesses: I'm not sure if I was reading the article in the wrong way, but I had a hard time following the changes that you made. I'm sure it will make more sense once you put them together. Also, there were a few other instances where citations should have been added in order to confirm that the information comes from a credible source. An example of this is in a few statistics regarding how much time workers spend a week in the workplace. Lastly, I found a few small grammatical errors that you might need to double check when constructing your final draft. Opportunities: I think your team did a really good job making improvements to this article. The amount of information you added was great, but going back and finding more relevant examples on the concepts you discussed would add so much more value. Also, reading over the information that currently exists in the article would be a great idea to make sure that the changes you make will match what currently exists. Threats: A large threat that I could see looming over this article in the amount of information that currently exists in your article. I think it's very important to match your changes to what currently exists in order to avoid confusion within. Otherwise, I can't see many other threats within your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrboss09 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)