 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JacquelynTiffin,
Sccarthy,
Zaffinoc.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Given the critical comments that appeared in the past, I'm delighted to find the article so well-balanced. I wonder if more details could be provided regarding the specific conditions in which 360 degree feedback works and those when it doesn't. Also, what kind of impact does this type of feedback have on an organization's environment? I see mixed results in its ability to produce changes in performance, but I think discussing how employees feel about it is also warranted. Jesserjames ( talk) 03:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
hi
I'm a novince in the field of management. The 360 degree method of appraisal is of interest to me..Id like to know more, as in the evolution and history, success and failure reports etc...If someone has all these details, do contact me at linutaura@epatra.com.
regards lindsie
- Okay: it sucks. Take it from a long-time IBMer. It started in about the mid-1980s and began to die about 2000 because of its ineffectiveness and morale-lowering difficulty. It creates a lot of paperwork and doesn’t yield much insight that the employee can’t get from his manager. Peers rate each other too generously and subordinates are afraid to criticize their superiors. Plus, how many people do you need to tell you that you should be more proactive in managing risk and look for ways to expand your skill set? However, in a modified form (such as infrequent subordinate evaluations of their managers), it may remain useful. -- Tysto 04:33, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
>>> Perhaps you should channel your energy into mastering the English language.
@Tysto - agree with your comments. However, putting Lindsie down in your parting shot, in that light sarcastic way is unwarrented. Ironically it may explain why such stupid tools like 360's exists as some seem unable to provide considerate, improvement tips directly.
360 Feedback for managers is alive and well as a developmental tool. It is used very infrequently by most progressive organizations as an "evaluation" method. Entering my 30th year as a leadership consultant I can testify to its value in coaching and developing folks whose perceptions of their own behavior is not borne out by survey feedback from their peers or work teams. Questions should be based upon core capabilities / competencies determined critical to a climate of leadership in your organization. Les Wallace, SignatureResources.com
360 degree feedback and 360 degree review are usually different processes. Most legitimate providers of 360 degree feedback only use their tools for feedback and coaching purposes. Once a 360 degree tool is used for a performance review, you tend to get skewed results. Reports and Peers give the leader higher scores because they know their performance bonus is on the line. When it is truly anonymous feedback, that is only used for constructive feedback and coaching, you tend to get more honest results. -- Tkuhne 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) boothco.com
360 degree feedback refers to the process of gathering 360 degree feedback. 360 degree review refers to the use of 360 degree feedback... for review. As a process, they are identical, and their articles should be merged and relationship clarified within that one article to explain that difference. The common advice against the use of 360 degree feedback for review should be highlighted as well. Also, please do not advertise your company on the main page of this article. This is an encyclopedia, not free ad space. richdiesal 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As a practitioner in this field for over 20 years and editor/author of The Handbook of MultiSource Feedback, I strongly disagree with the statement that 360 cannot succeed as a tool for decision making. Many organizations have and continue to use 360 for decision making, including not only appraisal but also succession planning, high potential selection/development, staffing, and leadership development. The fact is that 360 data, generated under the right conditions (including things like rater training), provides information that is more valid and fair than that created by traditional sources (i.e., supervisor evaluations). Yes, it can be misused and abused, which is true for any tool/process. And it is difficult to do well and to sustain it. But it is overly dogmatic to dismiss it as useful only for development. In fact, purely "development only" systems are quite rare and are, in my experience, not worth the investment. David W. Bracken, Ph.D. Iopsychguy 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This article seems unbalanced. In places it reads like promotional material for 360 degree feedback. Where is the criticism? -- 203.97.202.236 ( talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Having read it again, this whole article feels like an advertisement put together by people selling online 360 degree feedback tools.
An example of criticism can be found in the 1999 Watson Wyatt Human Capital Index: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/featured/hci.asp - "potentially draining shareholder value by as much as 14.5 to 33.9% for practices such as developmental training for career advancement, 360-degree feedback programs and using HR technology for softer goals such as improved culture and/or communication." -- 203.97.202.236 ( talk) 02:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now twice removed an external link in the body to a Google search about online 360-degree services. My first reason is that Wikipedia forbids external links in the body of articles (they can only appear in an External Links section at the end). Secondly, a Google search link is a totally inappropriate thing to link to from Wikipedia because the information returned varies depending on when you search. Besides, most users are entirely capable of doing a Google search themselves. So this link wouldn't even be suitable in External Links. Finally, it's clear that the main reason for such a link is advertising (by someone who considers their product well-ranked in Google) - please note that Wikipedia does not allow advertising (see WP:ADS). Please do not add this again, as it clearly violates several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've also removed the superlative phrase "Then came the Internet!" which reads like over-excited advertising copy, not like an encyclopedia. We can discuss these edits here if you wish, but please don't start an edit-war over something so clear-cut. -- 203.97.202.236 ( talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
How many of those references are actually mentioned or used as source material for the article, and how many are just listed to advertise them? For instance, a reference was just added but the article was not changed. See WP:REF, general references are for listing "books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article", not for providing a general reading list. -- Ryan Paddy ( talk) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this is Ataur, am a HR Executive in a Group of Company in Bangladesh. I have heard about the 360 degree performance apprisal method. I'd like to know more about this method. If any one has any forms or formates on how dose this works, thn please contact me at rasel_rahmansub@yahoo.com
I'd be glad to hear from any of you
Bye
Ataur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.199.82 ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted again an edit which removed a wikilink to Watson Wyatt as the rationale that the link is not appropriate on grounds that it is a commercial company does not seem to be a valid reason for removing a wikilink. I note another editor was also querying the reason for removing the wikilink and the reason(s) provided in the edit summary so far do not seem to relate to a wikipedia policy I am familiar with. If such a policy exists which satisfactorily supports the approach that such links should not to be made of this type in this article it would be helpful if it could be provided in response to this request in which case I will of course be happy to leave the company unwikilinked. Tmol42 ( talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I also restored the link earlier. While the latest edit summary by Coaches360 is correct that the link goes to the company's article and not the study done by the company, there is nothing wrong with that. The wikilink does not indicate that it is going to the study as the word study is not part of the wikilink. If someone would click on the link they should realize they are going to the company's article because that is all that is blue. It is an appropriate wikilink for the article since the company is discussed in the article. The Manual of style on linking says " Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." That is what the link does, it allows readers to understand more about the company that completed the study. I have also added a fact tag to that sentence, maybe we can find a link to the actual study on the web and add it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added the Wyatt Watson study mention. As I recall, the study is outlined by Pfau & Kay (2002), as are the statements currently attributed to "others". I agree that the current presentation of these sources is rather ambiguous, as there are several statements from that source followed by a single reference. I don't think the Wyatt Watson study is available via academic access, you have to buy it, which is why we're relying on the description of it in Pfau & Kay. On a separate note, does anyone else find the referencing style of this article horrible? I far prefer the [number] style of reference, it's much more readible and prevalent on Wikipedia. If we used the number style we could stick the same number after all of the statements sourced from Pfau & Kay, rather than adding "Pfau & Kay (2002)" after each statement which would be ugly. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
>>>>>>> GB Fan, Tmol,
I can see we continue to reverse each others' changes regarding the Watson Wyatt link on 360-degree feedback . My reason for deleting the Watson link is that it refers to the Wikipedia page for Watson Wyatt (a commercial enterprise), rather than to the study being mentioned. Having gone through a year ago and cleaned up all the references/citations on this page, I found there were a large number of "studies" that linked to commercial information (although the WW link is a Wikipedia link, it still describes a business), and not the study itself. In order to preserve the non-commercial element here, it's important that this not start up again. For example, I recognize many of the others of the articles cited in the references section. They are solid references and strong studies. Many of them belong to commercial enterprises and these enterprises conducted the studies-- similar to Pfau of Watson Wyatt. However, does this mean that each of these should refer back to their companies via a Wikipedia link? If the link is regarding 360-degree feedback, great. However, the link does not describe 360, it describes a company. Additionally, although WW is cited here, the WW study isn't considered to be at the same level of rigor, primarily because it was conducted by a commercial enterprise in order support it's own motives and purposes. Also, the source can only be accessed by subscribing to WW's site (sounds like a commmercial venture to me, doesn't it??). Linking to a WW page could only serve as an inappropriate attempt to promote SEO rankings, as well as promote WW as a business doing 360 feedback. Is this what we're aiming for in this link?
Also, regarding your "citation needed" remarks, the WW study is already cited in the Pfau and Kay reference later in the paragraph.
As for reference formatting, you are correct-- it doesn't make sense to cite the same source multiple times in the same paragraph (the "need citation" marks should be removed). Please note that the reference "author & author (year)" conforms to APA formatting, which is the generally accepted standard for organizational psychology, including Wikipedia articles regarding such.
Thanks for your review. I really do respect the dialogue here. My goal is to provide accurate, unbiased info, without promoting one commercial enterprise over another. Coaches360 ( talk) 03:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Coaches360
- The inclusion of Watson Wyatt in the article is not inappropriate, and I assume as you have not removed it nor commented against its inclusion that you also agree that it is appropriate to refer to the company in the context in which it is used. The company has been deemed notable by editors of Wikipedia, consequently there is an article about it. As the 360 degree article includes mention of Watson Wyatt wikilinking Watson Wyatt to the article about the company is relevant, and does not create any issues of commercialisation. One of the key features of the Wikipedia Project is the ability to link articles through wikilinks see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking), and editors are encouraged to add appropriate wikilinks to enhance its enclyclopaedic utility. Caution is advised when adding an external link to a company site where it could be considered to be linkspam. As far as I am aware there is no such policy appied to the everyday use of internal links to articles about commercial organisations. I hope this helps to clarify the distinction and rationale being applied to the retention of the wikilink. Tmol42 ( talk) 11:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article on Watson Wyatt is an appropriate wikilink. It is not promoting the company, it discusses the company. Coaches, if you feel the article is overly promotional in nature you can fix it so it is more factual and less promotional. Every company that is discussed in this article, that has an article in Wikipedia, should have a wikilink to the article. Internal links are added into the articles so that other readers have the ability to find out related information. Information about the companies discussed in the article is related and is pertinent to understanding the whole concept. As far as the citation needed tags are concerned I really don't care, I guess i am used to seeing a different kind of citation but the method is not important. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason we need to mention a company that happened to perform one of the many studies described in the article. If there was a need to mention it, then it would be appropriate to link it. But mentioning the company that performed one study adds no real information to the article. I've rephrased this paragraph to make it clear what the citation for the two statements is, see what you think. I think I was the one who put the Wyatt Watson company name originally, but I can't see any reason for its presence now. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello i would like to make a contribution to this article. Please return any feedback on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fernando18/Personal_sandbox -- Fernando18 ( talk) 16:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel this list is excessive. Seems like 25-30 entries, approximately equal to the number of references. As per WP:Further reading, the list needs culling. I don't feel confident wading through the list and cherry-picking the most notable mentions so hopefully an editor who knows the topic better. Rayman60 ( talk) 22:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree – this article has too little meat to hang all these further reading pointers on. While I'm sure there are people who make a living doing this sort of activity, the article does not do a good enough job of explaining how it differs or is better than other, similar techniques, nor how it has been validated.
- If I were impatient, I would first eliminate any entries for which at least one of the authors has a later entry - someone with sufficient interest will easily be able to reconstruct the chain backwards through the authors' cites of their earlier papers. If someone were less impatient, they could try to locate web-accessible versions of these resources and choose the best ones. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JacquelynTiffin,
Sccarthy,
Zaffinoc.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Given the critical comments that appeared in the past, I'm delighted to find the article so well-balanced. I wonder if more details could be provided regarding the specific conditions in which 360 degree feedback works and those when it doesn't. Also, what kind of impact does this type of feedback have on an organization's environment? I see mixed results in its ability to produce changes in performance, but I think discussing how employees feel about it is also warranted. Jesserjames ( talk) 03:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
hi
I'm a novince in the field of management. The 360 degree method of appraisal is of interest to me..Id like to know more, as in the evolution and history, success and failure reports etc...If someone has all these details, do contact me at linutaura@epatra.com.
regards lindsie
- Okay: it sucks. Take it from a long-time IBMer. It started in about the mid-1980s and began to die about 2000 because of its ineffectiveness and morale-lowering difficulty. It creates a lot of paperwork and doesn’t yield much insight that the employee can’t get from his manager. Peers rate each other too generously and subordinates are afraid to criticize their superiors. Plus, how many people do you need to tell you that you should be more proactive in managing risk and look for ways to expand your skill set? However, in a modified form (such as infrequent subordinate evaluations of their managers), it may remain useful. -- Tysto 04:33, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
>>> Perhaps you should channel your energy into mastering the English language.
@Tysto - agree with your comments. However, putting Lindsie down in your parting shot, in that light sarcastic way is unwarrented. Ironically it may explain why such stupid tools like 360's exists as some seem unable to provide considerate, improvement tips directly.
360 Feedback for managers is alive and well as a developmental tool. It is used very infrequently by most progressive organizations as an "evaluation" method. Entering my 30th year as a leadership consultant I can testify to its value in coaching and developing folks whose perceptions of their own behavior is not borne out by survey feedback from their peers or work teams. Questions should be based upon core capabilities / competencies determined critical to a climate of leadership in your organization. Les Wallace, SignatureResources.com
360 degree feedback and 360 degree review are usually different processes. Most legitimate providers of 360 degree feedback only use their tools for feedback and coaching purposes. Once a 360 degree tool is used for a performance review, you tend to get skewed results. Reports and Peers give the leader higher scores because they know their performance bonus is on the line. When it is truly anonymous feedback, that is only used for constructive feedback and coaching, you tend to get more honest results. -- Tkuhne 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) boothco.com
360 degree feedback refers to the process of gathering 360 degree feedback. 360 degree review refers to the use of 360 degree feedback... for review. As a process, they are identical, and their articles should be merged and relationship clarified within that one article to explain that difference. The common advice against the use of 360 degree feedback for review should be highlighted as well. Also, please do not advertise your company on the main page of this article. This is an encyclopedia, not free ad space. richdiesal 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
As a practitioner in this field for over 20 years and editor/author of The Handbook of MultiSource Feedback, I strongly disagree with the statement that 360 cannot succeed as a tool for decision making. Many organizations have and continue to use 360 for decision making, including not only appraisal but also succession planning, high potential selection/development, staffing, and leadership development. The fact is that 360 data, generated under the right conditions (including things like rater training), provides information that is more valid and fair than that created by traditional sources (i.e., supervisor evaluations). Yes, it can be misused and abused, which is true for any tool/process. And it is difficult to do well and to sustain it. But it is overly dogmatic to dismiss it as useful only for development. In fact, purely "development only" systems are quite rare and are, in my experience, not worth the investment. David W. Bracken, Ph.D. Iopsychguy 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This article seems unbalanced. In places it reads like promotional material for 360 degree feedback. Where is the criticism? -- 203.97.202.236 ( talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Having read it again, this whole article feels like an advertisement put together by people selling online 360 degree feedback tools.
An example of criticism can be found in the 1999 Watson Wyatt Human Capital Index: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/featured/hci.asp - "potentially draining shareholder value by as much as 14.5 to 33.9% for practices such as developmental training for career advancement, 360-degree feedback programs and using HR technology for softer goals such as improved culture and/or communication." -- 203.97.202.236 ( talk) 02:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've now twice removed an external link in the body to a Google search about online 360-degree services. My first reason is that Wikipedia forbids external links in the body of articles (they can only appear in an External Links section at the end). Secondly, a Google search link is a totally inappropriate thing to link to from Wikipedia because the information returned varies depending on when you search. Besides, most users are entirely capable of doing a Google search themselves. So this link wouldn't even be suitable in External Links. Finally, it's clear that the main reason for such a link is advertising (by someone who considers their product well-ranked in Google) - please note that Wikipedia does not allow advertising (see WP:ADS). Please do not add this again, as it clearly violates several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've also removed the superlative phrase "Then came the Internet!" which reads like over-excited advertising copy, not like an encyclopedia. We can discuss these edits here if you wish, but please don't start an edit-war over something so clear-cut. -- 203.97.202.236 ( talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
How many of those references are actually mentioned or used as source material for the article, and how many are just listed to advertise them? For instance, a reference was just added but the article was not changed. See WP:REF, general references are for listing "books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article", not for providing a general reading list. -- Ryan Paddy ( talk) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this is Ataur, am a HR Executive in a Group of Company in Bangladesh. I have heard about the 360 degree performance apprisal method. I'd like to know more about this method. If any one has any forms or formates on how dose this works, thn please contact me at rasel_rahmansub@yahoo.com
I'd be glad to hear from any of you
Bye
Ataur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.199.82 ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted again an edit which removed a wikilink to Watson Wyatt as the rationale that the link is not appropriate on grounds that it is a commercial company does not seem to be a valid reason for removing a wikilink. I note another editor was also querying the reason for removing the wikilink and the reason(s) provided in the edit summary so far do not seem to relate to a wikipedia policy I am familiar with. If such a policy exists which satisfactorily supports the approach that such links should not to be made of this type in this article it would be helpful if it could be provided in response to this request in which case I will of course be happy to leave the company unwikilinked. Tmol42 ( talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I also restored the link earlier. While the latest edit summary by Coaches360 is correct that the link goes to the company's article and not the study done by the company, there is nothing wrong with that. The wikilink does not indicate that it is going to the study as the word study is not part of the wikilink. If someone would click on the link they should realize they are going to the company's article because that is all that is blue. It is an appropriate wikilink for the article since the company is discussed in the article. The Manual of style on linking says " Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." That is what the link does, it allows readers to understand more about the company that completed the study. I have also added a fact tag to that sentence, maybe we can find a link to the actual study on the web and add it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I added the Wyatt Watson study mention. As I recall, the study is outlined by Pfau & Kay (2002), as are the statements currently attributed to "others". I agree that the current presentation of these sources is rather ambiguous, as there are several statements from that source followed by a single reference. I don't think the Wyatt Watson study is available via academic access, you have to buy it, which is why we're relying on the description of it in Pfau & Kay. On a separate note, does anyone else find the referencing style of this article horrible? I far prefer the [number] style of reference, it's much more readible and prevalent on Wikipedia. If we used the number style we could stick the same number after all of the statements sourced from Pfau & Kay, rather than adding "Pfau & Kay (2002)" after each statement which would be ugly. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
>>>>>>> GB Fan, Tmol,
I can see we continue to reverse each others' changes regarding the Watson Wyatt link on 360-degree feedback . My reason for deleting the Watson link is that it refers to the Wikipedia page for Watson Wyatt (a commercial enterprise), rather than to the study being mentioned. Having gone through a year ago and cleaned up all the references/citations on this page, I found there were a large number of "studies" that linked to commercial information (although the WW link is a Wikipedia link, it still describes a business), and not the study itself. In order to preserve the non-commercial element here, it's important that this not start up again. For example, I recognize many of the others of the articles cited in the references section. They are solid references and strong studies. Many of them belong to commercial enterprises and these enterprises conducted the studies-- similar to Pfau of Watson Wyatt. However, does this mean that each of these should refer back to their companies via a Wikipedia link? If the link is regarding 360-degree feedback, great. However, the link does not describe 360, it describes a company. Additionally, although WW is cited here, the WW study isn't considered to be at the same level of rigor, primarily because it was conducted by a commercial enterprise in order support it's own motives and purposes. Also, the source can only be accessed by subscribing to WW's site (sounds like a commmercial venture to me, doesn't it??). Linking to a WW page could only serve as an inappropriate attempt to promote SEO rankings, as well as promote WW as a business doing 360 feedback. Is this what we're aiming for in this link?
Also, regarding your "citation needed" remarks, the WW study is already cited in the Pfau and Kay reference later in the paragraph.
As for reference formatting, you are correct-- it doesn't make sense to cite the same source multiple times in the same paragraph (the "need citation" marks should be removed). Please note that the reference "author & author (year)" conforms to APA formatting, which is the generally accepted standard for organizational psychology, including Wikipedia articles regarding such.
Thanks for your review. I really do respect the dialogue here. My goal is to provide accurate, unbiased info, without promoting one commercial enterprise over another. Coaches360 ( talk) 03:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Coaches360
- The inclusion of Watson Wyatt in the article is not inappropriate, and I assume as you have not removed it nor commented against its inclusion that you also agree that it is appropriate to refer to the company in the context in which it is used. The company has been deemed notable by editors of Wikipedia, consequently there is an article about it. As the 360 degree article includes mention of Watson Wyatt wikilinking Watson Wyatt to the article about the company is relevant, and does not create any issues of commercialisation. One of the key features of the Wikipedia Project is the ability to link articles through wikilinks see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking), and editors are encouraged to add appropriate wikilinks to enhance its enclyclopaedic utility. Caution is advised when adding an external link to a company site where it could be considered to be linkspam. As far as I am aware there is no such policy appied to the everyday use of internal links to articles about commercial organisations. I hope this helps to clarify the distinction and rationale being applied to the retention of the wikilink. Tmol42 ( talk) 11:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article on Watson Wyatt is an appropriate wikilink. It is not promoting the company, it discusses the company. Coaches, if you feel the article is overly promotional in nature you can fix it so it is more factual and less promotional. Every company that is discussed in this article, that has an article in Wikipedia, should have a wikilink to the article. Internal links are added into the articles so that other readers have the ability to find out related information. Information about the companies discussed in the article is related and is pertinent to understanding the whole concept. As far as the citation needed tags are concerned I really don't care, I guess i am used to seeing a different kind of citation but the method is not important. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason we need to mention a company that happened to perform one of the many studies described in the article. If there was a need to mention it, then it would be appropriate to link it. But mentioning the company that performed one study adds no real information to the article. I've rephrased this paragraph to make it clear what the citation for the two statements is, see what you think. I think I was the one who put the Wyatt Watson company name originally, but I can't see any reason for its presence now. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello i would like to make a contribution to this article. Please return any feedback on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fernando18/Personal_sandbox -- Fernando18 ( talk) 16:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel this list is excessive. Seems like 25-30 entries, approximately equal to the number of references. As per WP:Further reading, the list needs culling. I don't feel confident wading through the list and cherry-picking the most notable mentions so hopefully an editor who knows the topic better. Rayman60 ( talk) 22:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree – this article has too little meat to hang all these further reading pointers on. While I'm sure there are people who make a living doing this sort of activity, the article does not do a good enough job of explaining how it differs or is better than other, similar techniques, nor how it has been validated.
- If I were impatient, I would first eliminate any entries for which at least one of the authors has a later entry - someone with sufficient interest will easily be able to reconstruct the chain backwards through the authors' cites of their earlier papers. If someone were less impatient, they could try to locate web-accessible versions of these resources and choose the best ones. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)