Wikipedia:Peer review/Job satisfaction/archive1

Job satisfaction

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… This article is part of an IO psychology class were we are renovating this article for a good level.

Thanks, Tbalbertson (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it needs quite a bit more work before it would be anywhere near ready for WP:GAN; here are some suggestions for improvement. Mostly these involve better adherance to the Wikipedia Manual of Style

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the whole happy worker hypothesis seems to be only in the lead, for one example.
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but none of the theories or models listed in the article are explicilty mentioned in the lead.
If at all possible, one or more free images should be in the article
Wikipedia articles are to be based on published reliable sources and not on original research. Statements like this one in the lead "Logic would dictate that the most satisfied (“happy”) workers should be the best performers and vice versa." seem like original research without a reference or more explanation / development in the body of the article
The biggest issue this article has is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole paragraphs and sections with no references at all.
For example the whole History section does not have a single inline ref (footnote). I do note that it mentions some books / work, but these should be cited as references.
There are a fair number of what are sometimes called weasel words / weasel statements in the article - for example Some argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. or Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. say who argues this (and cite it), or even Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. Cite this - who says it is well-known?
The refs that are there seem good - {{cite journal}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Section titles need to follow WP:HEAD better - watch capitalization. Another requirement is that the section headers avoid repeating the name of the article if at all possible. So "Models of Job Satisfaction" could just be "Models" (the reader already knows the article is about Job satisfaction) or "Factors that Influence Job Satisfaction" needs to be changed too.
In general the article reads more like a college essay than a Wikipedia article. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are some FAs on Psychology topics at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Philosophy_and_psychology that may be useful models.
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]