User talk:DL Yang/sandbox
Pre peer review[edit]
Pre-Edit Peer Review Feedback
Name of student reviewer
- Replace with username for version on talk page** Joan Bailey
Date of review 5/16/2013
Name of editor
- Replace with username for version on talk page** Yangchen Lama
URL of editor’s Userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DL_Yang/sandbox
Date review posted on editor’s sandbox’s talk page May 16, 2013
Date review submitted to instructor 5/116/2013
Length of edit (too long/too short) The length of the edit is good.
Image (needed/appropriate) N/A
Review of textbook information (accuracy of info in edit) Textbook information is accurately edited.
Article is empirical, primary & peer-reviewed The article is empirical
Review of article information (accuracy, I/O Psych) The information presented relates to I/o psych
Wikiformatting Formatting is good
Grammar & composition Grammar and composition is good
Other comments Nice job
Joan Bailey (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
POST PEER REVIEW[edit]
Post-Edit Peer Review Form Name of Student Reviewer: Paula Guthrie Date of Review 17/05/2013 Name of editor DL Yang URL of editor’s Userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DL_Yang URL of Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
Reference page number in Schultz & Schultz
Permanent URL on PsycInfo of article
Item Points Points Earned
Evidence of posting ahead of the edit on the talk page 1 point 0
Signed post on talk page 1 point 0
Each response to questions on talk page 1 point 0
Sandbox with intended edit 1 point 1
Number of sentences in edit 1 point 6
Appropriate image in edit 1 point 0
Appropriate link to another Wikipedia page or external page 1 point 1
Textbook based reference information correct 1 point 1
Research article based reference information correct 1 point 1
Research article is empirical 1 point 0
Research article is peer-reviewed 1 point 0
Research article is primary 1 point 1
Reference and footnote formatted correctly 1 point 1
Each response on talk page after edit 1 point 0
Student made changes to article in response to editor comment 1 point 0
Each editor change to student’s edit minus 1 point
Fancy formatting (1 point for each up to 3 points for each: new section w/ heading; bulleted list; numbered list etc) 3 points 2
Total ------- 14
Joan Bailey (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)