User talk:Haider.z.28/sandbox

Sorry Kasie, I wasn't getting emails for the last few days as well! Thanks for making the changes. I will email Dr. Council, then we can work on moving it to the main space. Bradi.carlson (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I made the changes to the problem areas that Ian noticed. We are ready to move it over to mainspace!! K2padden (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone sent Dr. Council an email saying ours is ready to be critiqued by the wikipedia guy? K2padden (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I am really sorry guys, even though I have this page on my watch list it isn't giving me updates when you guys comment on this page. I agree with what you guys have previously said! K2padden (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just quickly added The Likert Scale under his Career. Once Kasie gives us the go-ahead I will email Dr. Council! Bradi.carlson (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bradi and I agree with Zainah our article looks more put together now and it really looks good! I also looked it over again and couldn't really find much to change so I am comfortable with moving forward. Good work team! Jordie.Salwei (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the Likert Scale and Open Ended Interviewing sections under a Contributions Header. It may make the article look a bit more put together and those things would be easier to find for people specifically looking for Likert's contributions. I re-read everything and I think it looks good as well! I think it would be good to have Ian take a look at it since he knows how Wiki articles should be written. 96.18.251.27 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Zainah

Hi Group, I went through and proofread/edited what I could of our article, and revised what Dr. Council asked us to. If you guys would look it over again and see any changes that need to be made that would be great. It's nice to have another set of eyes. If it looks good to go, we can email Dr. Council to have Ian take a look at it. Thanks! Bradi.carlson (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Kasie, I like that idea a lot! We can have the Career section separate, but under Contributions we could add the Likert Scale and Open Ended Interviewing. Don't worry about the length of the Life Insurance Agency, it is better than nothing. We can always add to it if we find more info. I'm unsure how add a picture as well, maybe Dr. Council can help us with that. I know there is some copyright issues involved. Bradi.carlson (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you guys think that the Likert Scale and Open Ended Interviewing should be subheads under a Contributions header? Or we can just wait to see Council's comments about our layout! I am unsure about the length of the Life Insurance Agency Management Association, but I was unable to find more details. Also, I have a picture of Rensis Likert to put into the quick bio section, but I am unsure how to do that. K2padden (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I started a heading for your Career section, Kasie. I put my open-ended interviewing as a subheading below it, saying that we could fit in into his career. You can put in whatever you find on his career. A good edition may be the contribution that Dr. Council gave us. Zainah, your contribution of the Likert Scale could go right above the open-ended interviewing (but under Career), if you think that would fit in. Bradi.carlson (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I definitely agree and don't think those subheadings belong under the Likert Scale section. Kasie, go ahead and add those subheadings under the Career Section when you have that typed up! Haider.z.28 (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was working on my part and somehow the editing/referencing got very screwed up where we all put our separate Lead Sections. For some reason when I saved my changes, it changed the formatting and now it looks crazy. I got our combined lead section to look normal again, but I will have to manually add in all the citations again. Sorry Jordie, since you were the one who did it originally. But, I got a good start on his Early/Personal life. Let me know if you have suggestions on how to change it. Bradi.carlson (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Kasie, I think it fits best under the Career Section. But yes, it shouldn't be under the subheading of Likert Scale since those do not pertain to the Likert Scale. Bradi.carlson (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can do Likert's career and add a picture of him. I have one more question, do you guys think the subheadings under "Likert Scale" belong under the career section? or is that information going under someone else's section? K2padden (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Kasie, I think you're right. Those two seem pretty similar. Maybe Jordie could focus on his Contributions (awards and honors). Kasie, would you want to do his career and add a picture in of him? I was originally going to do that, but I will do his early/personal life and open ended interviewing. Let me know what you think. Bradi.carlson (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So it looks like what is left is Likert's "Career" and "Personal Achievements" which is what I will do. Although, should "Personal Achievements" be put with "Awards and Honors"? K2padden (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, our To-Do List got deleted! :( I talked with Zainah and Jordie, and they've agreed to do the following. Kasie, it's up to you what you want to contibute! (if you remember what was on your to-do list, then great!)

-Early Life/Personal Life: Bradi -Put picture in: Bradi -Add to his publications: Jordie -Zainah adds to Likert Scale contribution -Awards and Honors Jordie -Open ended interviewing Bradi Bradi.carlson (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For Kasie You did a good job following our outline while writing your lead section. You hit important aspects of Likerts life while also keeping it concise so that the reader goes on to read more of the wiki page. I believe maybe adding a few other details would have been good, but if we combine all of our strengths with our lead sections we will have a really great one! Haider.z.28 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Jordie I think you did a really good job highlighting important topics and aspects of Likerts life, while also managing to keep it brief enough to not give away a ton of information. You did a good job highlighting things Likert did in regards to business which most of us seemed to leave out. I believe you wrote a very well informative, yet concise lead section. My only critique would be on how much we need to talk about in regards to his business contributions but we can all discuss that later on. Otherwise great job! Haider.z.28 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Bradi You definitely had some information in your lead section which many of us didn't note at all which is good because we can use some of that in our final Lead Section draft! You organized the information well and in chronological order which is important! In regards to discussing Likert developing the Rensis Likert Associates, I think it is definitely good to note within the lead section, but maybe leaving out details would be better since it will probably be talked about in depth later, on the wiki page. Otherwise great job on your lead section! Haider.z.28 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Zainah I really like your lead paragraph. It is much different than the ones previously written. I like how you brought up other information that we had not already mentioned. I believe we will have a great lead paragraph from the drafts we have written! K2padden (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Zainah Good job on the lead section. You added some good points that the others hadn't mentioned, and it will be helpful to add in to make it a even better section. It is good to know why he started studying behavior; I did not read that anywhere. I do not have much improvements for your section; I think it will be nice to combine all 4 of our sections to make a really great one! Bradi.carlson (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Kasie I like your lead section! Just as Jordie did, you ensured that all the main points were hit but kept it concise. I believe that if I came across that article when trying to find out more about Likert, it would be a good one to read. Also, you highlighted all the sections that we will be talking about more in depth down below. Overall, great job. My only improvement is the same as Jordie's with where he attended college (since that could be put in his early life). That may be an important point, though, and maybe it's okay to keep it! Bradi.carlson (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Jordie I think you did a great job of hitting the major points of his life and by giving a good amount of information that doesn't give it all away. It is concise and informative and can stand on its own. I like how you wrapped up the lead as well. I can't think of any suggestions for changes at the moment. K2padden (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Bradi I like how your lead section is concise, but it may have room for more information. You do hit the key points of his life well, beginning to end, so the structure of it is quite sound. Some details would make if even better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K2padden (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Jordie Great job with this, Jordie! Your overview of Rensis Likert was very informative, but concise enough to highlight the important pieces. You established all of his important contributions within, so someone can skim it over and note what he is known for (especially in psychology!) Our group has got a good start with what you've written. I like how you added in his major works (his books) as well as his main theories of organizational psychology. Overall, you've hit all the points that was needed. The only improvement that I can think of is a few very small grammatical changes that can be fixed very simply on the citing feature. Also, the information about where he attended college is awesome to know, but my personal opinion would be to maybe move it to his personal/early life section? We could also mention it in both places, though! Bradi.carlson (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Bradi I think your lead section has a good start and has potential that it provides a good overview of who Rensis Likert is but could also maybe use a few more details. I think you did a good job with he information you provided and summarizing why Likert is important and what important contributions he has. Lastly, I think you have strong starting sentences that establish why Likert is notable in the first place. Overall, I think it just needs a few more details and your lead section will be able to stand on its own. Jordie.Salwei (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

For Zaina I think you did a good job at making a concise lead article and bringing in new information that no one else had yet. I think you also did a good job with defining Rensis Likert and hitting on important information regarding him. The only critique I have is that some of the information that you put towards the bottom of your lead article may be more beneficial within in the first two sentences but overall great job! Jordie.Salwei (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Kasie I think you did a good job with making your lead article concise and to the point and explaining the topic and why Rensis Likert is important to psychology. My only critique is I think you could have added a little more detail to help your lead section stand more strongly on its own. I liked that you brought up his contributions to business and I had to and after reading critiques on my lead article I think we need to explain how his contributions to business management relate to organizational psychology a little more clearly. Overall great job on your lead article! Jordie.Salwei (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Bradi: Wow. I wish everyone did this thorough a job. Filling out this article will be much easier with what you've found so far. For your first question, I'm not familiar with the linking pin thing. Lickert spanned a lot of fields. Just focus on his contributions to psychology. That is what is lacking in the present article. J.R. Council (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
For Kasie: As I said above, just focus on his contributions to psychology. That is what is lacking in the present article. Second question - good point. If there are existing pages on Wikipedia, no need to repeat that information, just link to the page. You can also do external links to pages not on Wikipedia. J.R. Council (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
For Zaina: Question 1: You do not need to add to this section. However, as Bradi notes, he did a lot of work that is not mentioned in the article. This is a way to direct readers to additional material. Question 2: Any personal background you can add is great. But if you can't find anything, that's okay. J.R. Council (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
For Jordie: See comments above. He contributed to many fields, but you can focus on psychology. For his publications, focus on psychology, and don't go into detail on any particular paper. Summarize major research areas rather than describe specific projects. J.R. Council (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5

First, some general comments. You've done a nice job of organizing your tasks and finding material. As you are developing your article, be sure to properly format your article for Wikipedia. You will need to do this eventually, and might as well start now.
Comments on specific sections:

1. To-do list: Looks good. Appropriate level of detail for now - you'll be adding more. Some of this material belongs in the outline.
   1. For instructions on illustrating Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia Resources page on Blackboard. For information on making an infobox, type Help:infobox into the Wikipedia search box.
2. Outline: I meant for groups to do a proper outline, like this:

I. Main topic

A. Subtopic

1. Sub-sub topic,etc.

As you are developing your article, it would help to use this traditional outline format for organization.

• Although there is quit a bit of material in the article already, there is a lot of potential for development regarding Likert's contributions to psychology. I can help you with this. Be sure to fact-check the existing text.

1. References: Reference citations are not formatted properly for Wikipedia. As you add text later, be sure to use the drop-down menu to attach reference citations in appropriate places and format references properly.
2. Task commitments: You've done a bit of this, but it seems incomplete. It would be useful to add more details on who's doing what. J.R. Council (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6

I think you've done very good work on both the leads and critiques. I kind of like Jordie's as a starting point, since it is a bit more detailed. However, be sure to identify Likert as a psychologist, since that's what his Ph.D. is in. However, you all are correct to emphasize his interdisciplinary work. Please take a look at the email I sent with Powerpoint. His work in WWII was important and is not mentioned in the current article. J.R. Council (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7

Excellent work, Group 14. I can't think of anything you need to change in this lead. Big thumbs-up to develop the main article.

• Thanks for clarifying everyone's contributions! J.R. Council (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8

Hi Group 14. I will be reading this in detail when I get a chance this weekend. I've taken a quick look so I can give you some feedback before I leave today. Overall, looks great. I'd say you are just about ready to go. Certainly, very little additional work is needed. If you want to work on it before you hear back from me, just proofread and polish it up. J.R. Council (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
After reading this over again, I still think it is just about ready. However, there are lots of grammatical errors and typos. Proofread carefully! Here are some comments on specific sections:

• Lead: You need to make it clear that the Likert scale is not a specific test, but a response format that has been used in a variety of measures, including personality and attitude tests.

• This sentence needs to be corrected: Although a psychologist Likert's contributions in business management lead to managers learning how to more efficiently manage their subordinates.

• Likert scale: First sentence - "contribution" is a better term than "work".

• This sentence is clumsy and needs to be rewritten: The most typically used 5 categories of possible response selections a person can choose from lie along a range from strongly agree (SA), agrees (A), is undecided (U), disagrees (D), or strongly disagrees (SD).

• Early Life/Personal Life: Proofread this section. Here is an example that needs to be fixed: "The noticed the two parties lacked communication".
• Career: Another poorly written sentence: "The purpose of the DPS was to gather farmers' thoughts toward the New Deal programs sponsored by USDA to challenge the effects of the Great Depression but was soon used in other governmental agencies, during WWII, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of War Information, and the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey."
  

Once you get this polished up, I will ask Ian from Wiki Ed to take a look at it. J.R. Council (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

Nice work on your draft. I made a few stylistic edits, but you it looks good overall. There's something wrong with reference #2, and #9 and 10 are to "Converse (1987)" but the full reference is missing. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like you're good to go, as soon as you make the changes Ian suggests. Please read the instructions following Assignment 9 on moving an article to mainspace. Email me when you're ready to publish. J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)