Talk:Organizational learning/Archives/2015

Prior Version

Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article?

A significantly improved and referenced discussion of organizational learning, individual learning, and organizational progress is needed for this article. It is a high priority topic in the fields of I/O psychology, management, even ergonomics. I would contribute more if I had the time. This topic is discussed in many course textbooks.

Due to the "style" of how this article is written, I believe a complete re-work with a blank template would be the best option. ~ Opinionated Squirrel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.147.6 (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has potential, but needs both cleanup, better in-line references, and accessible to new readers. Anyone willing to take a stab at improving this article? Harvey the rabbit (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

based on the comment at an edit just now: "Remove [a particular external link]... we're closing the journal" it seems this article shows major signs of OWNership, and needs some outside attention. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, a partner and I are taking this page on for a class project in Organizational Communication. Any suggestions for an approach to this article? Firstly, is rewriting from scratch the consensus for the article or should we use some of the existing content with a new structure? Open to any ideas and proposed formats or sources! Thanks. Finding Zeno (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Models

The models should specify results of studies, not just explain what the study was about. Overall they need better wording/clearer explanations, and they should be uniform in length. Here are some notes for revising the models mentioned. Would cutting down the models to maybe the five most important or relevant ones be good?

i. Argyris & Schon model: need clearer explanation ii. Kim model: what is the single comprehensive model? Need to identify the main takeaway from the model iii. Nonaka & Takeuchi model: better wording, but clear explanation iv. Bontis, Crossan & Hulland model: define stocks v. Flood model: specify results vi. Watson model: need to simplify vii. Imants model: better wording, but clear explanation viii. Common model: need to simplify/identify main takeaway ix. Bontis & Serenko model: clearer wording x. Van Niekerk & Von Solms model: results? xi. Busche model: more concise

Apasilia (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a question. that says how to learn french. but they gave me how to learn spanish:<

Not sure as to your question; that said, this article could be improved by in-line references. Harvey the rabbit (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Organizational learning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this article. I'll begin with some basic checks like copyright and will continue with a section-by-section review. I notice that the nominator doesn't seem to have been active recently. After posting some initial feedback, we'll leave this review open for a few days to see whether anyone would like to respond to the feedback. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually I start by looking at the overall layout, copyright status, wikilinks and external links. I don't detect any inappropriate use of copyrighted text in the article and the one image seems to have the appropriate copyright license attached to it. The article's external links all work. On the wikilinks (the internal links to Wikipedia articles), I see one issue. In the second paragraph of the Relevance section, there is a link to routines. This link leads to a disambiguation page, but none of the material on the page discusses routines in the context of learning.

Something that sticks out to me is the use of caps in the section headings. See WP:SECTIONCAPS for an explanation of sentence case versus title case for these headings.

Below is some section-by-section feedback from an initial readthrough.

Lead

• The lead section should provide a summary of the points made in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD.
• The word inter-organizational doesn't need a hyphen. This one repeats in other sections of the article.
• The last sentence is awkward, with the use of "however" in the middle of the sentence, but I suspect that you'll have to rewrite the section per WP:LEAD.

Relevance

• The wikilink to "organizations" should occur on the first mention of the word. Same thing for "knowledge", "experience" and other terms.
• Generally, we don't want to have any paragraphs that are unsourced.
• The wording of one of the sentences (the last sentence of the third paragraph) is a little confusing to me. Maybe try taking out "extend beyond retaining individuals to" and replace it with "include".
• For the first quote and source under Units of Learning, you want to make sure you use reliable sources. Is the UNC source a class syllabus or a set of lecture notes? You could likely find similar info in a journal or textbook.
• All of these technical terms (like Individual Learning) should probably be in lowercase letters unless they are some sort of trade name.
• Under Individual Learning, change "doesn't" to "does not" and check for contractions in the rest of the article.
• Under Inter-organizational Learning (" An organization is able to improve their..."), I would use "its" to correspond to organization, not "their".
• In some places where direct quotes are used, it might be more natural to use paraphrasing. I particularly noticed that in Adaptation and Routines with the mention of the three criteria.

Knowledge

• "Researchers measured..." - isolated use of the past tense

Will be back to leave more feedback once these issues are addressed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm closing this as unsuccessful for now. The nominator hasn't been active since December and this review was open for more than a week. We are left with sourcing issues and problems with guidelines like WP:LEAD. If anyone would like to work toward GA and can address the above feedback, just ping me and I'll be glad to continue the review. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)