This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Overall, the prose is fine. I'm not the world's greatest copyeditor, but it seems to be readable and pitched at an appropriate level, seems to be free of serious typos & punctuation issues &c.
There are a few places where you've used something which looks a bit like the stub of a Harvardesque citation, ie. "Leventhal (1980) described six criteria...". This isn't bad, per se, but wikipedia offers those automatic numbered cites (which you've used well) so it could look slightly anachronistic. There are a few other minor issues where the style doesn't quite match wikipedia's style conventions (ie. the MOS) but they are not serious failures - for instance the four numbered criteria at the start of "Goal-setting Theory" could perhaps be laid out differently.
Great use of sources. I love it. Reliable sources are the best possible foundation on which to build a wikipedia article. However, they are mostly academic sources which approach the subject "head on". Are there any sources which discuss work motivation in a specific context, or from a different angle (IE. a perspective you wouldn't usually find in an MBA textbook), or which give some interesting case studies? Let your imagination loose. Also, on a more trivial point, if a source is available online (even if it's just an abstract with the rest hidden behind some journal's paywall) then it's probably a good idea to link to it in the citation.
Don't worry too much about naming specific writers unless they're very prominent. We are more interested in giving an encyclopædic overview of the topic than, say, comparing paper X to article Y.
One of wikipedia's strengths is the ability to tie in lots of different things (mostly with wikilinks), and I think there's room for improvement on this point. There's no need to turn the whole page blue, but try looking for a few more theories / topics / people which have articles elsewhere that you could link. For instance, going back to the criteria at the start of "Goal-setting Theory", perhaps they could link to SMART criteria? Could any other articles link to this one?
Would it be possible to liven up the article a little with some images? They needn't be photos; diagrams and charts could be helpful too. (Maslow's hierarchy of needs is an obvious example although it's not perfect).
If you don't like these opinions, I have others.
Overall, very impressive. Well done! bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to add towards the excellent information you have already offered unfer the topic of "Motivator-Hygiene(Two-Factor) Theory". i would be highly gratful if you could check my edit and see if it is suitable for your given information. I expect to hear from you soon, thank you.
Hey so I am in a class where I have to edit pages based off of my textbook. I found this page and thought that I could maybe add more information to the Goal-Setting Theory section of the page. This is what I cam up with and I wanted to know was it okay to place it after I believe the third paragraph of the section. This is what I felt that I could contribute to the page. It is apart of my sandbox thank you.
This article is missing a large amount of research that suggests rewards are not as beneficial as everyone seems to think. It's similar to Herzberg's theory but has been backed up by several studies. See Self-determination theory --Melarish (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)