Talk:Job sharing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The article in its current state is too short to adequately describe what job sharing actually is. The advantages and disadvantages section needs to be expanded with more concrete research and examples. It also would be beneficial to have a section committed to going more in depth on the history of job-sharing and its effect, if any, on the economy. It also would be helpful if there was information about the methods that current companies use and their research on its effects on moral and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dng21 (talkcontribs) 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review hbw14[edit]

Principle #1: Comprehensiveness.[edit]

A.[edit]

Yes the lead paragraph explains but only briefly.

Job sharing is a form of part time work. It has history in many industries. It has many advantages and disadvantages such as some quality of life qualms with someone only working half of a job.

The article is brief at best and does not fully explain the topic to any extent.

There is a wealth of evidence available for a limited amount of information.

B.[edit]

The topic of the article is clear.

There is scholarly support though it is not detailed.

C.[edit]

There are five different sources used, and all are used once.

There are no competing points of view to provide.

Nuances and subtle distinctions are void.

Principle #2: Sourcing[edit]

There is an appropriate amount of sourcing for the limited amount of information.

The article has too few references for the information to truly be without a bias.

The references are formatted correctly.

The language is objective and doesn’t seek to push a perspective on the topic. The language is precise.

Everything stated in the article is cited.

Principle #3: Neutrality[edit]

The article is adequately neutral to the topic, though brief.

The article avoids stating opinions as facts.

The article really only states facts.

The coverage is poor for all categories, but it is balanced and fair.

Principle #4: Readability[edit]

A. Langauge[edit]

The entry is written fine for a stub.

The sentences are at least in the majority passive voiced and fine grammatically.

The entry has been proofread.

The entry is easily accessible.

The language is very clear.

B. Organization and Style[edit]

The article has had no edits except to remove information as far as I can tell. The idea for the article is unclear.

The Paragraphs are barely paragraphs at all.

C. Formatting[edit]

The article is properly formatted.

The links are proper.

D. Illustrations[edit]

There are no images.

Open Ended Questions:[edit]

Feedback 1: What I like is that all of the time on this article has been spent cleaning it. It makes the article cleaner and easier to read and will make their future edits easier.

Feedback 2: The article needs more detail and the article definitely needs more sources.

Hbw14 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Peer Review Trevorcallarman[edit]

Comprehensiveness[edit]

The lead paragraph explains the topic. However, there may be room for elaboration. As far as I can tell. Job sharing is between two people that make an arrangement to do one job. History shows its a pretty recent thing. It can benefit those people who want to work less hours. I think more needs to be added on the advantages and disadvantages. The evidence appears to be sufficient.

The article does focus on a clear topic, and does have scholarly references.

It seems to represent various perspectives. The tone is appropriately neutral.

Sourcing[edit]

The claims are supported with references. Although the article needs more. The language is precise.

Neutrality[edit]

The article has a neutral point of view. It shows a few advantages and disadvantages, but needs more. The article does not state opinions as facts. Coverage is well balanced.

Readability[edit]

The entry is written with clear language and the message is coherent. It is clear and has few grammar errors. B. Organization and style - Has a clear focused and is well organized. However, more topics may need to be added for future edits. C. Formatting - It appears to be formatted well. There could be more entries. An image may be cool.

Open-ended Questions[edit]

1. I like that the group has given a clear idea about what job sharing is. The definition flows well with the history and gives me a good idea about why job sharing was created.

2. I would add more information to this article. Make sure there is as much good literature in there as possible. I would also try and add more sections for people to edit in the future.


Peer Review

a. Content

It provides a good summary of job sharing but it is very brief.

The history of job sharing and the pros and cons of it

There needs to be more information added to the article. It does not provide sufficient detail and each subsection is short.

Points are well supported with evidence but information is brief

b. Thesis and analytic focus Does the article focus on a clear 
topic? 
Yes Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? 
Yes

c. Representativeness 
 The article should have more sources

The disadvantages section does not have any sources while the advantages does.

Sourcing The sources seem accurate and reliable. The articles does not have a lot of sources. Could improve by adding more. The language in the article is precise.

Neutrality The article has a neutral view but it needs more sources. The article provides facts and not opinions. The first paragraph is much shorter than the rest so that makes the information seem unbalanced.

Readability a. Language The article is well written and there did not seem to be errors in the article.

b. Organization and style 
 Yes, the article structure is clear. It could use more subsections to have more information.

c. Formatting 
 Yes, it follows the correct Wikipedia format.

d. Illustrations
 The article does not include images.

Open Ended Questions 1. I like that they provided accurate information and it was well written and easy to follow. 2. They need more sources and they could add more subsections to expand on the information they have.Acv22 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

~~Brennonwalker~~

Open ended questions: 1.The article gives a good background on job sharing. The history portion of their article impressed me. 2. I suggest that the group discusses what job sharing is in the article. 3. Add a definition of job sharing. 4.I would add advantages and disadvantages to my article. Content-deep history but brief definition. Thesis- The article focuses on one topic Sources- has minimum sources. Neutrality- the article is very neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennonwalker (talkcontribs) 02:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)