Date: November 01, 2019
LinkedIn Profile of: Taras Shyp
Reviewed By: Ranjit Dhaliwal
Review Template: ENGL_301_Ranjit_Dhaliwal_LinkedIn_PeerReviewTemplate
LinkedIn Profile URL: www.linkedin.com/in/tshyp
| Criteria | Comments |
| First Impressions | |
| – What was your first impression after reading through the profile?
– What stood out or caught your attention (positive or negative)? – Was the profile professionally presented? – Did the profile have all the necessary components needed in an effective LinkedIn profile? |
– I was impressed with the authors depth of education and his research interests
– The profile was professional presented – Tara’s pursuit of a PhD in Molecular Oncology stood out and caught my attention – Could benefit from more connections but is understandable due to it being a new profile – Should Add a background photo to attract more attention |
| Photos | |
| – Is the profile image professional in nature?
– Is the individual wearing appropriate attire? – Are there any other features in the background or surroundings? – Is the picture suitable given the individuals professional background? – Is the overall picture clear and high quality? |
– Profile picture was professional in nature
– Wearing professional attire (collared shirt, formal) – No surroundings in background of picture – Profile picture is suitable given professional background – Profile picture looks high quality with solid grey background, looks like a professional photo |
| Title | |
| – Has it been kept up to date?
– Does the title and headline create interest for the reader to continue reading the profile? |
– Title has been kept up to date
– Title mentions that he is a graduate student at BC Cancer Research Agency – Could enhance title by also mentioning current educational studies (PhD student) |
| Summary | |
| – Does the summary provide an adequate description of professional and academic experience?
– Does it describe any areas of expertise, goals or academic interests? – Did the author do a good job providing a summary without being too personal? |
– Summary is short but very detailed and to the point which is nice due to limited space
– Summary describes his area of study (Molecular Oncology) and interests (molecular pathology of tumors) – Author does a great job of providing a detailed summary without being too personal |
| Work Experience | |
| – Do the job descriptions include a title and relevant dates?
– Were you able to identify the industry in which the organization is a part of? – Does each job have a general description of the role or position that the individual was hired for? – Was the list of work experience in the correct chronological order? |
– Job title and relevant dates are present
– Organizations are all within the Medical Field – Each job has relative role or position the author was hired for – List of work experience was in chronological order – The overall work experience section was well laid out |
| Education | |
| – Does the author include the description of the educational facility?
– Is the specific program stated (diploma or degree)? – Does the author state any GPA or academic grades achieved if honorary? – Are there any other academic achievements listed? – Is the list in sequential order? |
– Author describes the educational facility of all relative education
– Author classifies himself as a current PhD student with a prior Doctor of Medicine MD but doesn’t provide undergraduate degree description – List is in sequential order |
| Skills | |
| – Are the skills listed representative of their field of work?
– Do they have any endorsements for the skills they listed? – Are there any other accomplishments listed? Other languages or proficiency? |
– Skills are representative of authors field of work
– There are no current endorsements of skills listed – No accomplishments are listed |
| Organization and Grammar | |
| – Does the profile have predictable flow and structure?
– Were there any grammar mistakes? – Did the author use any technical language that didn’t fit the profile? – Were the relative sections in chronological order? |
– Profile has a good flow with detailed and concise information
– No grammatical mistakes were observed – No overly technical language was used – Relative sections were in chronological order |
| Conclusion | |
| – What parts of the authors profile stood out?
– Did you feel they provided enough information? – What suggestions would you make to help enhance their profile? – What parts of their profile did they execute well? – What’s your overall impression of their profile? |
– I was impressed with the authors level of education and interest in Molecular Oncology
– Should try and develop more connections – Should add a background picture to attract more attention – Should add in undergraduate area of study prior to Doctor of Medicine – Should try and get endorsements for skills listed – Should list accomplishments if any have been achieved |
Leave a Reply