User talk:Ashleydf/sandbox

{{{2}}} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scream_%26_Shout&action=history

This article shows evidence of a edit war because User:Baffle_gab1978 and User:Sauloviegas keep changing each others edits. One is saying their edits dont make any sense while the other user deletes the edit completely. Each user is nit picking at each other edits.

Name of student reviewer: Jasmine R Basnight

Date of review 05/06/13

Name of Editor: Ashley De Freitas

URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashleydf/sandbox

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:05/06/13

Date review submitted to instructor: 05/06/13

Length of edit (too long/too short): Great

Image (needed/appropriate): N/A

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Accurate

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A

Wikiformatting: The formatting is fine

Grammar & composition: Good

Other comments: This review is for Member Exchange Theory

Name of student reviewer: Jasmine R Basnight

Date of review 05/06/13

Name of Editor: Ashley De Freitas

URL of editor’s Userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashleydf/sandbox

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page:05/06/13

Date review submitted to instructor: 05/06/13

Length of edit (too long/too short): good

Image (needed/appropriate): N/A

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): yes it is accurate

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: N/A

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)-N/A

Wikiformatting: The correct formatting was used

Grammar & composition: Good

Other comments: This review is for the Hierarchy of needs theory

Peer review

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback Name of student reviewer: Trinirebel

Date of review 05/06/2013

Name of editor: Ashleydf

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

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page 05/06/2013

Date review submitted to instructor 05/06/2013

Length of edit (too long/too short) Appropriate length of edit

Image (needed/appropriate) None applicable for this edit

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit) Accurate information provided directly from text the text book

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed N/A

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych) Accurate information provided

Wikiformatting Exemplary formatting

Grammar & composition Grammar and spelling were error free

Other comments Exemplary edit. Trinirebel (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Trinirebel (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

Name of student reviewer: Nikicia

Date of review: May 7, 2013

Name of editor: Ashleydf

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

Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page: May 7,2013

Date review submitted to instructor: May 7, 2013

Length of edit (too long/too short): Edit length is appropriate

Image (needed/appropriate): None needed

Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit): Accurate

Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed: Yes

Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych): Article is adequate and relates to I/O Psychology

Wikiformatting: Good

Grammar & composition: Good

Other comments: Good editNikicia (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback

Name of student reviewer	Wikipedia User:MsNika349
Date of review	5/7/2013
Name of editor	Wikipedia User: Ashleydf
URL of editor’s Userpage	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashleydf/sandbox
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page	05/7/13
Date review submitted to instructor	05/7/13
Length of edit (too long/too short)	ok Length. Maybe a couple more sentences could be included.
Image (needed/appropriate)	n/a
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit)	Accurate
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed	Yes
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)	Accurate to I/O Psych
Wikiformatting	OK format
Grammar & composition	Good grammar. No mistakes noticed.
Other comments	Good edit material in general. Should be a bit logner but it's good overall.

(MsNika349 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC))

Name of student reviewer **Replace with username for version on talk page**	Wikipedia User:Xyzbb1253
Date of review	5/8/13
Name of editor**Replace with username for version on talk page**	Wikipedia User: Ashleydf
URL of editor’s Userpage	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashleydf/sandbox (book edit)
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page	5/8/13
Date review submitted to instructor	5/8/13
Length of edit (too long/too short)	Meets the requirement
Image (needed/appropriate)	N/A
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit)	derivative of textbook information
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed	N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)	Information is related to I/O psychology
Wikiformatting	No sources
Grammar & composition	Grammar is good
Other comments	You need to cite your sources
Reviewer's Signature	Xyzbb1253 (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Textbook Peer Review

Name of student reviewer	Wikipedia User:MsNika349
Date of review	5/7/2013
Name of editor	Wikipedia User: Hmehta0120
URL of editor’s Userpage	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashleydf/sandbox
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page	05/7/13
Date review submitted to instructor	05/7/13
Length of edit (too long/too short)	Reading your edit you have three sentences. I think you could try collecting more information from the text to make it longer. I find it kind of short.
Image (needed/appropriate)	The page doesn’t have an image, but if you can get a diagram from Google images and etc I think would as a great asset to your edit because people like seeing images that very much relate to the reading Something like this: http://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/Books/B0/B58/IMG/fwk-carpenter-fig10_015.jpg
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit)	Unfortunately, I am unable to answer this question because you haven’t provided where in the text you received this information. (I recommend you to cite through the edit which allows wiki users to see where you got the information and if it is real such as page number and text).	Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed	N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)	N/A
Wikiformatting	Your format is in paragraph form which works well with the article you plan on to edit, but I recommend the use of bullet points, numbers, underline, bold, and etc this will help readers identify what is important, grab ones attention and you receive more points for its creativity.
Grammar & composition	Seems well put together to me.
Other comments	Over all you have a good start just need to add the modification that I have added to the sections that need more information. GOOD LUCK!

Hmehta0120 (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Peer Review

Name of student reviewer	Wikipedia User:MsNika349
Date of review	5/7/2013
Name of editor	Wikipedia User: Hmehta0120
URL of editor’s Userpage	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashleydf/sandbox
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page	05/7/13
Date review submitted to instructor	05/7/13
Length of edit (too long/too short)	You currently have three sentences for this edit and I think you can add more to it, I believe there could be some more information to what you have already.
Image (needed/appropriate)	The image could be an option to add to the page. (if added more creativity points you can get).
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit)	N/A- article base edit.	Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed	N/A- you haven’t posted an article link to look back to if someone has questions, and also to find out if it is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed.
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)	N/A-There is no article link to see if it is accurate, and if it could be linked to I/O.
Wikiformatting	Your format is in paragraph form which works well with the article you plan on to edit, but I recommend the use of bullet points, numbers, underline, bold, and etc this will help readers identify what is important, grab ones attention and you receive more points for its creativity.
Grammar & composition	You have couple of grammatical errors, and some of the sentences seem run on.
Other comments	Overall great attempt and great article to edit on. Just minor edits and if you refer to the pervious section and make the accommodation I see a strong A+. Good Luck

Hmehta0120 (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback

Name of student reviewer	Wikipedia User:Angela Sandy
Date of review	5/13/2013
Name of editor	Wikipedia User:Ashleydf
URL of editor’s Userpage	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashleydf
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page	05/13/13
Date review submitted to instructor	05/13/13
Length of edit (too long/too short)	The length is good
Image (needed/appropriate)	n/a
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit)	Textbook info is accurate
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed	N/A
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych)	Accurate article for I/O Psych
Wikiformatting	Formatting is good
Grammar & composition	Grammar & compostition is good
Other comments	Don't forget to site when you are going to make the edit to article Angela Sandy (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)