User:Jmv81/sandbox

Work–life balance in the United States

The 1st paragraph talks about the 1st law in the US regulating work hours in 1874, but doesn’t give as much detail about the law or its name. It touches on the 1905 Lockner V. New York supreme court case, but that case should have its own paragraph considering the importance of the ruling. This sentence was in the Wiki, but shouldn’t be “The push for fewer hours had come to a close, but they had one more hurdle to overcome.” This is not an essay, this is a wiki and it shouldn’t be too stylistic to the reader. It should read as one piece that is uniformed and sounds alike. The United State History paragraph is too long and should be broken up into different sections maybe by dates or different presidential administrations. I like that it gives the average work hours, but it’s not in one place in the wiki, perhaps adding all the averages in one section or a graph would be better. It does talk about different laws, but only included 1 state statue and 5 federal ones. It might also include a section comparing the US to other countries or the effects of stress on the human body or mind, like suicided rates or depression.

Annotated Bibliography

Emond, Astrid E. 2016. "Work-Life Balance." OD Practitioner 48, no. 3: 74-75. Business Source Ultimate, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2016). This article compares the United States with Germany. As a German-American, the author offers his personal story about paid time off, sick leave, and working during nonwork hours.In 1994 as an attorney, he only had 2 weeks of paid time off while in Germany he had 6 weeks and unlimited sick leave. Vacation time in the US had to be pre-approved by the boss especially if it last longer than 2 weeks. Americans were expected to work even when they left work, by needing to respond to work emails and such. I don't believe this article to be a source to add to the wiki, but I do see it bringing up some important points we can add to the wiki. 1. Paid time off 2. Sick Leave 3. Vacation time 4. Working even when at home.

Shanafelt, Tait D, Omar Hasan, Lotte N Dyrbye, Christine Sinsky, Daniel Satele, Jeff Sloan, and Colin P West. 2015. "Changes in Burnout and Satisfaction With Work-Life Balance in Physicians and the General US Working Population Between 2011 and 2014." Mayo Clinic Proceedings 90, no. 12: 1600-1613. CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2016).

This paper shows that stress related to work can cause some to burn out / lose interest in their jobs. It looked at Physicians in the United States and concluded long hours and stress does indeed cause burnout in half of the 6880 physicians. It also used the general population as a control and still physicians experienced a stronger reaction to the stress because of their longer work hours compared to the general population. 42% of the physicians worked more than 60 hours a week, while only 6% of the general population did. More than half of physicians in the US are experiencing what they call burnout. I liked this article goes in depth with one particular stressful field of work, something the wiki doesn't have. Maybe talk about some of the most stressful jobs in the US to add to the wiki. Not all jobs are equally stressful.

Wang, Wei, Ivan Hernandez, Daniel A. Newman, Jibo He, and Jiang Bian. 2016. "Twitter Analysis: Studying US Weekly Trends in Work Stress and Emotion." Applied Psychology: An International Review 65, no. 2: 355-378. CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2016).

This article analyzes Twitter and using the meta data it collected from key words and phrases to analyze emotions and work stress. On a graph it shows Twitter uses stress keywords decrease as the the work week progresses and increase Saturday and Sunday. It could be Friday is payday for many Americans and that during the weekend many felt stressed about going back to work on Monday.I like the use of the chart and the use of soial media to servey stress in Americans. The use of charts and meta data could be useful in our wiki contributions.

Mercan, Murat Anil1. 2014. "A Research Note on the Relationship Between Long Working Hours and Weight Gain for Older Workers in the United States." Research On Aging 36, no. 5: 557-567. Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2016). This article looks at the physical effects of stress that work-life balance can cause and what millions of Americans experience and can actually see weight gain. Many Freshman in college experience this by gaining weight in their 1st year, possibly because of the stress they experience in studying for exams or navigating their newly found freedom. However, this article looks specifically at the older generation and concludes that longer work hours more than 59 hours a week are associated with weight gain. This could be added to the wiki as a physical effect of a bad work-life balance, rather than all mental health.

Kleiner, Sibyl, Reinhard Schunck, and Klaus Schömann. "Different contexts, different effects? Work time and mental health in the United States and Germany." Journal Of Health And Social Behavior 56, no. 1 (March 2015): 98-113. MEDLINE Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 21, 2016).

This paper does a great job comparing and contrasting the United States and Germany, in regards to the country's work culture and the effects it has on the worker's mental health. This is a unique perspective our wiki article doesn't have. They studied if longer working times are associated with mental health; the result was our results do not show greater mental health penalties for German women and suggest instead a selection effect into work hours operating by gender. It also talks about why Americans work so long, the cost of living, stagnant wages, and no free healthcare. Also, Germany and many other western European countries have laws limiting the work week, while the US is more reliant on the traditional 40 hour work week and the free market. It also concludes that working 60+ hours a week in the US is no worse for mental health than working 40. But because of Germany's work culture, longer hours DOES significantly effect metal health.

Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness

Details Notes

a. Content • Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the
article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points? 
 • What are the key points of the article as you understand them? • Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates? • Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis? b. Thesis and analytic focus • Does the article focus on a clear 
topic? 
 • Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? 
 c. Representativeness 
 • Does the contribution consider a 
variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? 
 • Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? • Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately? 


It does a great job of discussing media in the lead paragraph, but maybe use this as the Umbrella of the article…include a glimpse of pros/cons and include talk about bureaucracy.

How the media and bureaucracy use each other and the roles each one has in the other’s job. Also includes pros/cons of including media in bureaucracy

Outline could be adjusted: Negatives about media is at the end and could be seen as favoring media instead of an unbias article

yes

Yes, Media in Bureaucracy

Yes

I believe so yes

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

Details Notes

• Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? 
 • How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? • Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? 
 • Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? 
 • Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements?

It looks great and well cited; however, I don’t personally know the ins and outs of the citation process. I will choose not to comment because I know there is still time to fix this in the “Finishing Touches” phase.

But to the naked eye, citations look good and professional…very Wiki- like

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Details Notes

• Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints? 
 • Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts? • Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? 
 • How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? If I didn’t know any better, I would think it is a little PRO media in bureaucracy…

It is kind of hard NOT to promote media when it is all around us.

Even in our book, when discussing media in politics, there was still no common ground.

The “No” section still understood the gains of using media

It isn’t particularly well- balanced

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

Details Notes

a. Language • How well written is the entry? 
 • Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? 
 • Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? • Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? 
 • Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? 
 b. Organization and style 
 Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places?

• Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? 
 • Are the paragraphs well structured? 
 c. Formatting 
 • Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia?

Article Titles:
The first letter of a title is capitalized, but not the first letter of secondary words.

Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings?

Links:
Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? d. Illustrations
 • Does the article include appropriate images where possible? • Are these images used in accordance with the image use policy? 
 • Are the images appropriately captioned? 


Don’t abbreviate “U.S.” UNLESS it is first written as “United States of America (the U.S.)” to let readers know what the abbreviation stands for.

There is some difficult wording…sentences could use some restructure to improve readability

Using “they” in sentence too much could lose meaning…try referring back to the actual group more

What is written is formatted…I would suggest maybe remapping the formation of article headings

Still using a lot of bullet points but Understandable for rough draft

n/a

Open-ended feedback Questions Open-ended Questions

Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I think it’s amazing you created the article from scratch! It must have been difficult to start from group zero.

Great job for putting so much information together and sharing it with the world!

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs?

Work on structure/layout of the article the organization of headings/subheadings

Paragraphs vary in length and don’t appeal to the average eye. Try cutting out information that isn’t necessary in long paragraphs or find more information for short paragraphs to really make them look “equal” in length. 'Bold text