Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Courses/Industrial Psychology37APSWI963

This course has been the subject of an educational peer review led by an Online Ambassador or other experienced Wikipedian.

The review is below on this discussion page; see WikiProject Academical Village-Educational peer review for further process history and guidance.

If instead you would like to request a review, please use {{edu review}}

Welcome to the talk page

This is a place where you can ask questions, talk about problems, and discuss the Wikipedia assignment with classmates and other Wikipedians.--Mjtagler (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I see that there are about 11 articles in this project and that all of them are to be submitted to peer review. Please be aware that peer review currently has a backlog of around 25 articles (see Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items) and that some of the articles there have been waiting over three weeks for review. Since the course seems to end in less time than that, it is likely that some (though not all) may still be waiting for review when the course ends.

It may be useful to look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-18/Dispatches on common issues seen in peer reviews. Please also be awre that PR is not an infinite resource and is generally for articles approaching evaluation for Good Article or Featured Article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

Hi,
I've been working on some peer review of the articles and will put some article-specific comments on talkpages over the next 24h. However, there are some comments that I found I was repeating over and over again - they apply to the whole class - better to put those in a central location.

All of the articles are basically sound; they have readable, neutral text without any serious problems other than one copyright concern, and they've all been built on solid sources. Readers will learn something.
One common problem with classes is that students either add copyright violations (ie. copying exactly what a source says), or at the other end of the spectrum, original research (making up your own text which is not supported by a source). It can be hard to navigate a path between those two, but you've done a great job. Well done.
The articles generally have good, accessible prose; there might be a handful of typos or layout hiccups, but not many, and nobody is perfect.
With a few exceptions, the articles are based on academic, english-language sources which address the topic "head on". This is a perfect foundation for an article, but there might be interesting new sources in other areas which could give the article a little more breadth and depth - specific examples or case studies, criticism of a concept, alternative methods, and so on. In a few cases, articles are slightly (not very) US-centric as a result.
Wikilinking allows readers to easily explore connected topics; it's a very helpful addition to an article - especially if you spend a few extra minutes looking for the best targets for links. All the articles have some linking, but all could benefit from a few more well-placed links. It can also help to add inbound links (ie. find another article relevant to what you're working on, and add a link to your article) as long as they're not too spammy.
Other kinds of content can help enrich an article; photos, quotes, diagrams, graphs, &c... and these have only been used sparsely. Some of the articles use the {{Psychology sidebar}}, which is good.

Articles evolve over time; they don't emerge from your head fully-grown like Athena. So, it's unrealistic to expect a perfect article within a limited timeframe - my feedback is intended as a suggestion for ongoing improvement, rather than a complaint about what you've done so far.

I've been trying to keep my "hands off" the content of the articles themselves, so you can take 100% of the credit for your own work; but if you'd like me to jump in and help with a bit of housekeeping (typo fixes, wiki markup and layout, &c), just say so. bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I think one or two of the articles are nearly ready to go through WP:GA, if you'd like to collect that trophy too. It's a pretty big achievement for somebody who's starting from scratch; I still haven't found time to take any of my own articles through GA. Unfortunately, the process can take quite a long time - how much time have you got? bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]