Talk:Onboarding/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Artoasis (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I am reading through the article and will do some minor copyediting as I go. I plan to finish the review by Wednesday. Cheers. Artoasis (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   "Tactics used in this process include formal meetings, lectures, videos, printed materials, or computer-based orientations..." (and would be better here)

   "...because they have (a) a better understanding of their own needs and requirements at work and (b) are more familiar with what is acceptable in the work context." ((a) and (b) are unnecessary)

   "Fixed socialization provides a recruit with the exact knowledge of the time it will take complete a given passage." (...the time it will take to complete...)

   "...whether any given newcomer will be promoted to a higher level or not." (consider removing or not)

   "Ostroff and Kozlowski (1993) discovered that newcomers with mentors become more knowledgeable about the organization than did newcomers without mentors. ("did" unnecessary)

   "It makes logical sense that ... and unsurprisingly ... (consider removing "unsurprisingly" per WP:EDITORIAL)

   ...when they don't have formal onboarding assistance (do not)

   "This is one of ten steps executives can follow to accelerate their onboarding." (Is it really necessary to list the ten steps?)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Per WP:INTEGRITY, a source should be placed close to the material it supports. Several passages in the article, mainly in the "Organization socialization efforts" section, did not follow this rule. I suggest you refine your sources and attribute each paragraph to specific pages. The Van Maanen and Schein (1979) reference would be a good start.

   "Orientation sessions are a frequently used socialization tactic ... nor has any research provided any evidence for their benefits.[35][36][37][38][39]" (Also per WP:INTEGRITY, the five refs need clarification.)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The "Formal orientations" section is unsourced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I will put the article on hold for now, but I believe it is in very good shape for GA. If you have any problem or need any assistance, you could leave your comments here or on my talk page. --Artoasis (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Slow-Going Edits

Just a note that I am looking to revise this, but life has gotten in the way this past week. Please keep the article on hold, if possible. Brianrangell (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)