Wikipedia:Peer review/Job analysis/archive1

Job analysis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on this page for a psychology class at Ball State University. We are trying to improve the Industrial/Organizational Psychology-related articles on Wikipedia. For most of us, this is our first time editing articles on Wikipedia. I am hoping that someone will be able to review this article and let us know if we are on the right track, or what information needs to be added/changed.

Thanks, Mnshumate (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead is way too short, a couple of brief paragraphs are needed for an article of this size which summarise the topic under discussion.
"Industrial/Organizational Psychology" no need for all those capital letters, these aren't proper nouns.
"to prepare job description and job specification " either "to prepare job descriptions and specifications" or "to prepare a job description and a job specification"
"workforce into the organization" into "an" organization. Remember, this is an enyclopedia article, not a "how-to" guide.
"definition of a job domain; describing a..." be consistent. Either "definition..; description of..." or "defining ....; describing..."
Human Resources -> human resources.
Industrial Psychology -> ditto.
You link "task analysis" on the second time round. Usually we link things on their first use.
"and/or compensation. [2]" no spaces between punctuation and reference.
"conducted: task-oriented or worker-oriented." no need for the bold.
Task-Oriented etc -> Task-oriented.
Avoid more upper case stuff like Functional Job Analysis...
(0-6) -> use an en-dash (per WP:DASH) here so (0–6).
"The Dictionary of Occupational Titles " is not linked first time either, so make sure it is!
Needs more references for the "Procedures" section.
"(an online resource which has replaced the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)" missing a closing parenthesis.
Refs need titles, accessdates, publication dates, publishers, authors, etc where possible.
You have a duff "interwiki" link, see [[nl:Arbeidsanalyse.
Other Sources -> Other sources.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]