User talk:TheBackpack/sandbox

Comments

Hi Backpack...looking pretty good so far. Some suggestions:

1. for the references, consider using the WP:CITET citation templates. These help our readers by putting the references into standardized formats.
2. In several places you list percentages and costs, but there's no reference for these. If you don't source/footnote these, they'll definitely get flagged. Anytime stats or specific figures are used, they should be referenced. It helps establish the reliabilty of what you're saying in the article.
3. Since the ER and PER articles are no more, instead of redlinking them, consider expanding these into a short paragraph each. For PER, it would be appropriate here to mention that the term was coined by MBO, ref the website that says that, and that the term is getting picked up by several other companies, again with refs. (If you need the text from the deleted articles, let me know and I can retrieve it for you.)
4. Don't use inline weblinks like the two that deal with the MPS Group study. Use footnotes instead.
5. I took a look at the Contingent Workforce article. It's rather short, and I'm wondering if the two articles should be combined. That way what a CW is described and established for the reader, and then the reader is told how such a workforce is managed and marketed to employers. Just a suggestion, and if you think they should remain separate articles, I defer to your expertiese.

As I said, this is looking good. You've done a great job coming up with references. Thanks for picking up the ball after Sue dropped it. Keep up the good work! AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PER

The text is now on User:TheBackpack/sandbox/per. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My changes, and answers to the questions on my talk page

I made a few small changes to the first 2 paragraphs, as Wikipedia articles need to have a good solid lead that does not have a header.

As for you question about how to merge CW into CWM, make sure you integrate all the text from CW fairly seamlessly into your article, including the refs. I'm assuming that the final article will be posted under the CW name with CWM redirecting to it? Or were you plannning to have it under CWM with CW redirected to it? This makes a difference in how the move is done. Let me know. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the most logical thing would be to make an article on contingent workforce and redirect cwm to it. I am satisfied with how the article looks, so I am ready to publish it.

Thanks --TheBackpack 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)