User:KierraA./sandbox

4/23 Assignment

• Does other information provide needed context?

Looking at other articles, pertaining to the topic disabilities, the only thing that is touched on as far as employment and the disabled is discrimination/ADA. Employment and disabilities goes far beyond these two factors as pointed in my article; accommodations and its effectiveness, statistics on rates of disabled, etc. Looking at the employment page “disability” in the workplace is briefly touched and merged into bigger concepts such as policies/benefits and is listed amongst other definition of people (African American, pregnancy, gender), not fully expanded on. The article I’m working on can be too specific and some information may be useful on other pages, but better as stand alone. The Disability page is wide enough.

• Do related topics provide needed context?

Related topics does provide needed context amongst my article and related ones, such as statistics; African Americans amongst disabled workers in the workplace. This information is included in other articles but better help convey the diversity within the workplace as well as provide strong backup in the article. Not all stats are accurate/up to date or provide the same numbers, but each stat paint the big picture which is showing the differences. As a standalone, the information I provide is stronger and expand, more focusing on the disabled as a whole, rather than specific types of disabilities and issues mentioned in other articles.

• What sourcing is available now?
There are a lot of sources/ongoing research pertaining to my subject that can be used for my article. The article I am working on can be presented in a lot of angles. The issue would be analyzing the point of view of each source because many can be just pro disability rather than presenting two sides. If merged to an larger already existing article, it makes quality information for the category employment but doesn’t seem to fit with the already existing information. There’s a lot of information to use, hard part is not repeating information that is already used on other articles.

--KierraA. (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Contingency Plan: Awarded Good Article Status

Week 10 (4/1): read Style Guide and Good Article Criteria. Fix present errors on stub; bots and tags. Research more information for article

Week 11 (4/8): add relevant information, major edits, attempt to declassify article as stub

Week 12 (4/15): improve style, edit prose; spelling grammar, add links (attempt to make more like encyclopedia article), make sure references verifiable

Week 13 (4/22): read other articles related to subject, link other articles to mines, get peers/editors to read; peer review, get criticism on article and work on improvements/feedback

Week 14 (4/29): clean article, peer review again

Week 15 (5/6): review work on article, clean up/revision; attempt submission as good article status

Week 16 (5/16): if--denied fix article....get awarded good article status

Week 17 (5/20): ? Presentation ? ( not sure of class/final, or anything)

5 Improvements for Stub

1. Improve introduction-cut out information solely on disabilities and its meaning and connect the information provided in the body of the stub; employment
3. Watch language and make sure article maintain neutral point of view
5. Expand on topics already mentioned and add more topics
7. Shorten lengthy sentences so that information is straight forward
9. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, necessary links to other articles

--KierraA. (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

this is good, but you need to work on the issue that the editor brought up this week. Dr Ashton (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Improvements to #2

Article: Industrial & Organizational Assessment

1. Tagged as orphan: linked page to 3 other wiki articles related to Industrial and Organizational Assessment
2. I inserted hyper link to external page; Job-Analysis.Net--kept referring to it
3. Improved diction/ NPV in Defining of Industrial and Organiizational assessment section; eliminating terms "more than likely" "such as"...change tone
4. added citations improving varifiability.
5. Added Information

--KierraA. (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)