Talk:Employee scheduling software

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haydenjones93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axe to grind[edit]

I have removed the sentence: "Many smaller businesses have part time workers who may be studying on the side or have other jobs they attend to."

In addition to its lack of immediately relevance to the article (it may be appropriate for an article on part-time work in general, or on employee scheduling), it presents a trend toward part-time work in the "composition of the modern workforce" as an employee driven trend, which is hardly the whole story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.34.17 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography: Hbw14[edit]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030505488690050X The general employee scheduling problem. An integration of MS and AI

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/716f/f491fe8be17d8b4cb35bd9c5cfcee948e88a.pdf Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload

https://www.google.com/patents/US7058589 Method and system for employee work scheduling

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722170300095X Staff scheduling and rostering: A review of applications, methods and models

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0272696384900275 A heuristic programming approach to the employee scheduling problem and some thoughts on “managerial robots” --Hbw14 (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Peer Review 4;05,30 November 2016 (jdm195)~

Principle #1: Comprehensiveness.

A.Yes the lead paragraph explains but only a little information is given. I would add more information and a more clear definition

The article is brief at best and does not fully explain the topic.

B.The topic of the article is clear.

There is scholarly support.

C.The sources are used appropriately in my opinion

Principle #2: Sourcing There is an appropriate amount of sourcing evem thought there is little info. Everything seems to be backed.

The references are formatted correctly.

The language is objective and doesn’t seek to push a perspective on the topic. The language is precise.

Everything stated in the article is cited.

Principle #3: Neutrality The article is adequately neutral to the topic, though brief.

The article avoids stating opinions as facts.

The article really only states facts.

Principle #4: Readability A. Langauge

The sentences are at least in the majority passive and grammatically correct

The entry has been proofread.

The entry is easily accessible.

The language is very clear.

B. Organization and Style The article has had no edits except to remove information as far as I can tell. The idea for the article is unclear.

The Paragraphs are barely paragraphs at all.

C. Formatting The article is properly formatted.

The links are proper.

D. Illustrations There are no images.

Open Ended Questions: Feedback 1: I think this article could use more information. The sources they provided show alot of information available in this topic.

Feedback 2: The article needs more detail and the article definitely needs more sources.

~~Peer Review04:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)~

Except for fixing the sources and maybe putting the "complexities" after the "features", Overall good Wiki!

You give a good general definition of what an Employee Scheduling Software is and does and how people and companies benefit from it.

I think the section giving other related topics similar to this one is a really good touch to help the reader fully understand and/or get multiple perspectives on the topic.

I suggest switching Features and Complexity because Features are more relevant to the definition while complexities just give more detail to Employee Scheduling Software's impact on the workplace.

Good Job Team!

Peer Review (akn19) I like that the definition is good a descriptive however I feel there is maybe more you can add. Just to make the article a bit more full.

I did not find any grammatical issues which was great.

Maybe adding to how Employee Scheduling Software has changed throughout the years could help expand your article a little bit more. Or you can also add a little bit of history how they came up with this software.

Over all this wiki page is good I would just really try to incorporate any other information that can help develop you wiki page!

Other than that great job!

Akn19 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]