Talk:New public administration

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): PerlaPerez1, AnthonyP11, Mackenziediaz11, Kaleplumlee, Torijay1466. Peer reviewers: Samanthareds, Williamskel4, Austintxguy02, Hulkhoganpantera, Dewhirsta.

Untitled

I have deleted the random links portion of the page. Kelly Williams reviewing new public administration The lead section does do a good job of summarizing what the rest of the page is about. The page is organized well and the content is good. This team did a good job of organizing what information to go into what categories, I think all the categories or headers were necessary to understand new public administration. All of the references/links I checked were good and went to legitimate and scholarly sites. The features of new public administration tab I think could do without the bullet points, and instead turned into a fluid paragraph. The page does not have any bias statements or claims which is good considering people need to read it as information on a cite and not something like blog post with opinions. Two things they can improve on is adding images to help explain points and fixing the bullet points. They did a good job of making clear what the topic was about. Overall 9/10 good job guys  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamskel4 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

williamskel4 peer review

The lead section does do a good job of summarizing what the rest of the page is about. The page is organized well and the content is good. This team did a good job of organizing what information to go into what categories, I think all the categories or headers were necessary to understand new public administration. All of the references/links I checked were good and went to legitimate and scholarly sites. The features of new public administration tab I think could do without the bullet points, and instead turned into a fluid paragraph. The page does not have any bias statements or claims which is good considering people need to read it as information on a cite and not something like blog post with opinions. Two things they can improve on is adding images to help explain points and fixing the bullet points. They did a good job of making clear what the topic was about. Overall 9/10 good job guys  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamskel4 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Samanthareds - Peer Review

• Yes, the paragraph clearly explains what the article is about, but it does not mention what the main subtitles of the paragraphs in the summary.

• The key points of the article are the history, the features, the themes, the criticism and the significance of the new public administration.

• Yes, the contribution my peers put in the article seems more than enough sufficient for the topic of the article and is well rounded in all areas.

• I feel like more references need to be added, especially when it comes to the vocabulary and their definitions, where did those come from?

• Yes, the article’s sole focus seems so be to explain the new public administration and its function.

• Yes, there seems to be a fair amount of scholarly citations and references.

• There seems to be a good balance of ideas from different people, it doesn't seem biased at all.

• Yes, in the article there are citations of people with different ideas and views on the new public administration.

• Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately? 
Yes.

• Yes, all references coincide with the citations at the bottom.

• The references seem very reliable, and there is a good amount of citations.

• Yes, all citations are in the correct format.

• Yes, language seems precise and accurate.

• Yes, a neutral point is being made in the article.

• Yes, in the article it states when ever the following is a fact or someone’s opinion.

• Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? 
yes.

• The only sections that seem a little short are the first summary paragraph and the significance paragraph.

• It is written at a good reading capacity, not too easy but not too hard to understand.

• There seems to be very little passive voice and I didn't catch any grammatical errors.

• Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? Yes it has.

• Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? 
yes, it is available to everyone.

• Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? 
Yes, everything seems to be understandable.

Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? • Yes, there are subheadings and titles in all appropriate places.

• Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? 
• Yes, its very well organized and easy to follow.

• Are the paragraphs well structured? 
 Yes.

• Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia? • Yes, it seems to be formatted the way Wikipedia wants the article to be.

Does the lead section have no section headings? • The lead sections seem to have little subheadings of their own.


Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? • Yes, and there is a good amount of links attached to the article.

There are no images in this article.

Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I like haw they have different peoples opinions about the article and how they have a list of vocabulary with their definitions attached that define the new pubic administration, I like it because if it was me who was doing a research or a paper about the matter, this information and the way is presented would be very helpful to me.

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? I think all of the main points should be about the same length and I would suggest adding an image or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthareds (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

When reviewing the article “New Public Administration” I was a little underwhelmed by the introduction. It states a general overview of the subject but I think it lacks a fully sufficient summary of the entire article. It also uses language that is unclear to the average reader. The key points of the article as a whole seem rather clear. It presents the theory of new public administration as a reaction against old public administration. That is to say that it is promoting a more citizen based approach in evaluating public administrator’s performances rather than just the government. It also focuses on providing services that meet demands for the greater good and being flexible in its polices to achieve that goal. Sufficient citations are provided to support all these claims. The article focus is very clear as being about the theory of new public administration and is supported by references to scholarly articles. It also provides opposing views to the theory being overviewed in the article. The tone presented is neutral to the scholars cited. There is no bias on the part of the writers of the article. The amount of references is appropriate for the amount of text. However, the significance of new public administration seems downplayed compared to the section on its criticisms. The theory has a significant overview, it could just be expanded on in terms of the actual impact that the theory has served in comparison to old public administration theories. As far as formatting goes it adheres to the typical Wikipedia format for the most part. The only awkward spot seems to be under the history section towards the end. It states in bold text “New Public Administration theory deals with the following issues:” This could probably formatted into a whole new section or sub section to look a bit better. There are no pictures to compliment the text but given the subject they aren’t necessary. The language of the article is pretty straight forward. There are parts that may be worded in ways that are hard to understand but not excessively. It is somewhat of a complex concept for none academic readers anyway, so simplifying it further would be difficult. Overall, the language was well worded and the layout of the page was fluid as a whole. Overall, I think the group has done a good job at simplifying and expanding on the intricacies of the theory of new public administration. The previous edition of the article used less precise language and had less description. Going forward I think the article could use further explanations and opinions from scholars of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulkhoganpantera (talk • contribs) 02:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• • • PEER REVIEW***

A. Content · The introduction seems rather short and I feel that there could be more information put into it. · The key points are clear and mainly focuses on the role of the government and how it can help citizens. · This article points out that there could possibly be a new public administration and it has many good sources. For the most part, it looks like a neutral wiki article basically explaining what is going on. · There is a good amount of sources for how much there is in the article.

B. Thesis and analytic focus · This article does focus on the topic, it does not stray from new public administration. Formatting goes well with the table of contents. I do think that more information could be added. · It does include detailed scholarly support within the article and also in the resources at the end.

C. Representativeness · I believe that it does have more than one perspective on the subject. · Yes, it provides for someone to possibly argue a point and maybe make a change.

· Not all the claims are supported with references, but many are. · I think the references are reliable, I feel as though there could be more and also adding maybe a little more to the article as well. · Yes the sources are represented accurately, after the claim and then also under references. · The wording is a little unclear. · No, everything seems to be sources and noted. · The article does seem to have a neutral point of view. · I'm not entirely sure, some things come off as opinions and they aren't cited. · The sections all seem to be around the same amount of information aside from the introduction and criticism.

A. Language · It's not as well written as it could be. · No, the wording is a little off and is confusing to read. · I did not see any spelling mistakes. · Yes it is accessible.

B. Organization and style · It is organized well. · The paragraphs are structured okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.36.32.12 (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)