User talk:Jwills725/2sectionsforSL

Evaluation

You described your summary of your evaluation but what about details of your evaluation? For example, what specifically about the grammar distracted you/ I need to know and you'll need to know when you edit the article. You did better with the destraction with the definition,, but fill that in with some detail.

when you say that the facts were unsupported, how so? Unsupported in terms of arguments supporting statments made in the article or without citations/ I think you mean without citations, so where would you put citations/

Finally, why was it not neutral?

Dr Ashton (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoints feedback

this section is the strongest and the closest you've come to writing with wikipedia's tone and style. review these: wp:mos (this is a shortcut, type it into the wikipedia search bar) wp:wba And let's move away from using aPa citations and using wikipedia's citations WP:cite `Dr Ashton (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Viewpoint/operational definiton This section is clearly structured in that the information is presented in a way that readers can understand each individual point that is being presented. However, it is a bit confusing figuring out whether or not primary sources are being presented. For example, when you say "Bass (2000) discussed transformational leadership and its relationship with other theories, including servant leadership. In this work, servant leadership was described as having a number of parallels with transformational leadership (vision, influence, credibility, trust, and service), but it moved beyond transformational leadership with its alignment of leaders' and followers' motives.", it seems as if you are presenting Bass's personal research, or primary research. A major distraction for me was the fact that the sources aren't cited for the reader to see the information that is being presented. Readers will want to be able to see the exact source that the information was retrieved from so that they can trust what is written in the article, as well as read more on the topic from the point of view of those researchers. Although there aren't any citations, it is good that the names of the researchers are presented and not stated as something like "some people say..." so that it shows that the information being presented can be trusted. It is also good that your writing is neutral and not giving any hint of what your personal perspective is. Also, The information being presented seems to be coming from reliable sources since some of them are citing work done by earlier researchers. Overall, this section is well written but the citations should be added in wikipedia format so that readers can see the cited information for themselves.

Experimental Research This section doesn't present a lot of information, but it is a good start. The information that is presented does sound like it can lead to some good points being made on the different experimental research done in terms of Servant Leadership. This section is neutral in that it isn't presenting any information that is being presented solely to shed a negative or positive light on Servant Leadership, but to simply present what experimentation has been done and what has been found from those experiments. Just as in the previous section, this section needs Wikipedia style citations so that the information can be followed in the source it was retrieved from. Overall, this is a good start and can become a good addition to the Servant Leadership article if citations are added throughout and it is written using the tone that it has begun with. Binky1110 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Blinky1110 I have taken into consideration for what you and Dr. Ashton have said. I will be working to reframe my citing so that it is clear that it is peer review. I will also be adding more to the research part of the article. I think we are off to a good start in making this article what it needs to be. Jwills725 (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Jwills725