User talk:Kali Moumblow/sandbox

I agree to all things stated this far. I think we should aim to work on possibly three things at a time so we don't get overwhelmed or miss things; Things such as grammar, structure, and pursuing new information? Heyercol (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Collin Heyerdahl[reply]

Sources/Bibliography

http://amj.aom.org/content/12/3/319.short http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100331?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents TylerAlexander (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Reviews

Here are some of the peer reviews from group C.O.R.N.;

-good sources!

-I don’t think there’s a clear overview to begin the article

-not very clear layout of article, maybe the first draft was done before this point?

-maybe remove the copy and pasted area about the five purposes of downward communication and put in it your own words and then make it shorter

-maybe include definition or context paragraph of what superior subordinate communication is

-maybe instead of using bullet points for advantages of superior vs subordinate, sum it up in your own words

-clarify what you are keeping from the original article, are you keeping everything you pasted at the bottom?

Ca.craft (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a little bit confusing trying to understand the overall format of your guy’s sandbox and where you were adding in parts and where the article started

• Consider adding an overview or introduction in the beginning of the article to clarifying what you’re going to talk about in the article

• Condense the 5 purposes of downward communication and make them easier to read

• Good sources, make sure you site them in your article and change them to APA

• The concepts seem to be there, maybe just try and make the article clearer and more readable

• Think about adding on to existing topics and elaborating

Aosmek (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Confused at where the article begins versus what your groups notes are located.

• An overview section to preview the content in the article would clear some of the confusion.

• In the Downward Communication section make sure the purposes are written in your own words. I believe direct quotes should not be used in Wiki articles.

• The article should be in paragraph form rather than bullet points.

• Good Start on the “Scanlon Plan” and “Open Communication” sections, elaborate and develop those sections.

• Develop which parts of the original article you want to keep and which parts you will scrap. Helps get a better understanding of what your final article will entail.

• Good quality sources to pull information from.

• Solid structure to topic ideas. The next step would be crafting it into a coherent written article. Jaken1223 (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jreinhardt13 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article is somewhat confusing due to where the group notes are located.

The formatting is a little hard to follow making it hard to read.

The page overall could be a little more condensed.

I think that the putting it in paragraph form would make it easier to follow along with.

Good sources

I liked how you applied the "Scanion Plan" in your article

Good Start

The only real problem is that the formatting is a bit confusing making it hard to read. I think once you change that your article will be good to go,