Wikipedia:Peer review/Employment integrity testing/archive2

Employment integrity testing edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are part of Wikipedia's Initiative to better articles. Please look over and comment.

Thanks, JAShelton (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't use level one headings, i.e. those like =Types of integrity testing=, try ==Types of integrity testing== instead.
Then make the current level two headings into level three headings (with three = either side of the title of the section).
Although it's short, I'd prefer to see a pair of short paragraphs in the lead summarising the article.
Odd start by using dictionary definitions for integrity and test, not engaging at all, try telling me what "employment integrity" means straight away and I might be interested!
In fact, three dictionary definitions (including "construct") in the lead is a real turn-off.
"the honesty of the potential candidate is well enough " is "well" enough? Not sure that's good English at all.
No need for so many example questions.
"from your employer? [4]" no spaces between refs and punctuation.
"Examples of personality-oriented integrity test are: Personnel Reaction Blank, Employment Inventory from Personnel Decisions Inc., and the Hogan Personality Inventory. [4]" while I'm sure this is true, it doesn't tell me anything about those particular tests. And why so many capital letters?
Refs that are online need publisher/accessdate/publication date/author etc information.
Refs with page ranges need to use an en-dash, not a hyphen, per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]