Talk:Leisure studies

For our article on leisure studies, we are planning on making revisions that include the addition of the history of leisure studies, the top 10 colleges for this particular major, course descriptions involved, career opportunities, salary information, professional certification, various leisure activities, and any other relevant information that we feel should be included into our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josinski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think the editors of this article made a very nice contribution to this topic. The article started out very minimal, and I think they did a good job expanding upon a difficult topic. I especially like how they added headings to different sections in the article which made it much easier to follow. I also like how they added links to the specific pages about the leisure activities that they talked about, such as running, hiking, and weight living. I think the career opportunities could be expanded upon, considering the section is relatively blank at this time. I think they could have specified exactly where a degree in leisure studies will lead someone. The list of colleges is nice, but I think they could have expanded upon each college's individual program, since they could be relatively different from school to school. Overall, I think this group vastly improved this article, and made a solid contribution to the Wikipedia community. Meholper (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Plans for Revisions

For this project, we plan to break up leisure studies into several subheadings. Possible sections include history, education, activities, and careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlevi (talk • contribs) 01:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Overall, I feel that this group made a huge improvement to this article. I think they strengthened all sections. I like how they started the article in a very general fashion. Since, I did not have any previous knowledge on leisure studies, I liked the initial general overview. I particularly liked their contributions in the History section and their inclusion of the graph in the Career Opportunities section. I was fascinated to learn about the beginnings of this major because I have never heard of such a major before. I also really liked the graph because it gave visual interest and organization to the page. I feel that they can still further improve this article. I was intrigued by the group's very specific additions to the Education and Career Opportunities sections. I think they could expand on their list of most popular colleges for the major of Fitness, Recreation and Leisure Studies. I think it would be very interesting for the group to highlight the unique aspects of each of the programs and identify their similarities. I think they could also give some more specific roles when discussing work settings or find some prominent or influential individuals who had the major. Their improvements ameliorated Wikipedia as a source for such a huge audience. Good job! Oliviacd94 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

Be careful with your grammar. I noticed a few minor errors while I read, and I fixed the ones I saw, but the minor errors add up and they distracted me from the content of your article.

The biggest thing I noticed was the way you cited your sources. Some general comments:

• Unless you're going to hyperlink to the study/source itself, you should add in-line citations at the end of each sentence, rather than after the thing you're specifically referencing (like in the introduction section when you mention the journals).
• You linked to a lot of other Wikipedia articles. You don't need to link to another article every time there is a focal point in a sentence or paragraph (for example, linking to the tourism article in the education section?), and you certainly don't need to link to the same article multiple times. You linked to the sport/recreation/tourism articles almost every single time they were mentioned. You should link to articles that cover topics the reader might not be familiar with (linking to the National Recreation and Park Association was a good one) or articles that include something the reader might need to reference (such as an article on supreme court case, law, an event in history, etc). You shouldn't link to articles on general terms (like the swimming, tourism, biology, degree, etc. articles) or to articles that don't really play any big part in your article (like the examples of recreational activities, the destinations, childhood obesity, etc).

I appreciated the type of content you included, like the most popular colleges for the degree, working conditions and job statistics. I felt like I actually knew about the degree/career after reading the article, instead of just understanding the general concepts. Overall, good work!

Mkstring (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)