Talk:Organizational identity

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hulkhoganpantera, Laurenwheat, SRS200, N s138. Peer reviewers: Dewhirsta, Jessietx3, Titus.todd21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

 The article seems to flow well and seems neutral to the reader. I think you could expand the public perceptions section a little bit more by adding some examples of how public perception changed a way an organization conducted itself. An example like switching to paperless to adjust to a more eco friendly public or the perception we have when someone says ERON. Thanks, and have a good day! :)
  -Jess-

PEER REVIEW Your first paragraph does give the reader a clear idea of what organizational identity is as well as main points. The key points seem to be the central, enduring, and distinguishing attributes. You do have relevant key issues brought forth and is focused on a clear topic. The contribution to this article does seem to have a variety of perspectives and it is not just one persons view. There are a good amount of references, they all work (the ones you can physically click on). The language is precise and not confusing. Each section has good information and not too much or too little. Overall, it looks well done!

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewhirsta (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]