User talk:Vroig001/sandbox

Sherilene's Peer Review of user: "Vroig001"
1. Strengths of additions/edits by editor/author:
 * Contributions are organized well and applied under the correct section, for example the elaboration on work life balance at the beginning of the article.
 * All the information added seems relevant to the topic under discussion. For example the addition to the definition of work-life balance in the beginning gives a better understanding of work life balance. Also, the addition of paragraph two is valuable to the topic because it explains that certain factors of work could have a negative effect on ones physical and mental health and it also introduces how the Britain government is trying to address this issue.
 * The article is written in a neutral manner. There is no information presented that indicates that the editor is attempting to overthrow the reader to take a certain side or opinion. The article on "Work-life balance" is a general topic and it does not really evoke different perspectives. Furthermore, the article focuses equally on positive and negative information. For example, the editor added the positive aspects of work-life balance but also how work could be exhausting and why a balance is needed.
 * All references provided by the editor are reliable. It includes textbooks and journal articles such as, "Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology," and "Influences of the Virtual Office on Aspects of Work and Work/Life Balance."
 * Sources are not overused by editor. Editor provided a variety of sources. For example, editor added reference 1,2, and 5.

2. Suggested changes to article/edits/contributions:


 * In the first sentence of paragraph two added by the editor it reads, "Many studies and surveys indicate..." It might be good to specify which these specific studies are. By just saying many studies it could make the reader question the credibility. Also by providing the names of the studies the reader could look these specific studies up for further reference. If the source that the editor got these information from also says "Many studies.." then the editor could look at the primary source provided by secondary source the editor got the information from. The primary source might reveal the studies.
 * Editor could attempt to rephrase the sentence: "It has facilitated to work without having a typical '9 to 5 work day'." The flow of the sentence seems a little off. Editor could possibly say: "These technology advances facilitate individuals to work without having a typical '9 to 5 work day'."
 * The following sentence could also be rephrases: "Workers with a Bachelor's degree and higher education (18%) compared with workers with a high school diploma or G.E.D. (16%). It might not make sense to the reader when read alone. It only starts to make sense when the whole paragraph 3 is read together. By changing the wording of the sentence it might be more understanding to the reader this sentence is the comparing the challenges of workers with a bachelor degree and higher education to balance work compared to workers with a high school diploma or G.E.D.

3. Most important thing author could do to improve article: Author could look into the specific studies referred to in paragraph two, instead of saying many studies. This makes it too general. The names of the studies would make the sources more reliable and credible.

4. There isn't really anything about this article that is applicable to the article I am editing because this article and the "Sex verification" article I am editing are two completely different topics. Sgeld002 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof R Feedback
i like the additions you are proposing but would like to see a link to business ethics (e.g., providing work/life balance as part of CSR)  Micalva (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)