Talk:Public administration theory

message: Big lists of red links do not belong, in my opinion. Should probably remove the red links and make into a list of "Further reading" in the articles on Organizational theory in public administration orPublic administration. And please use inline citations and the cite templates. W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge  

message: This articles information could be widened if more of an overview of the history would be included, such as broad explanations of the first public administration theories and writings showing how they influenced government. Possibly offering  a section showing the evolution of public administration from classical to modern could help readers gain an understanding of how theories have changed over time and how older ones still have usage in our current governments around the world. Also in reference to the first suggestion, early public administrator theorist should be noted such as in politics for example regarding to Aristotle or Karl Marx for their notable contributions to politics and economics. Then note current and influential public administrator theorist. 
Johnnyq79 (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation  

message: I think the overview is good it could be more direct at first in defining Public Administration Theory. 
The three types of Public Administration Theory are a big part of the article and discussing them. Also Public figures in Public Administration Theory.
Y'all could add a little more transition from each topic at hand on the wiki page.
The information is well supported with citations.
The article has two clear topics and has support.
There could be more information on the negative side of Public Administration Theory and could maybe add more to further the article.
From what I can tell there are proper nuances and subtle distinctions.
  Yes all claims are supported.
The article has good references but y’all could add a few more to further support and added details to the overall article.
They seemed to be accurately referenced but there is red writing questioning the date under source 2. 
The sources and claims go well together. 
 There needs to be additional citing and sourcing under the Important Figures in Public Administration Theory.
The article could have a more neutral point, only because there isn't much negative stated about Public Administrative Theory and is very fact based.
The article doesn’t state anything that might be controversial, or opinionated.
The article could use a little more information that shows the downside of Public Administration Theory. 
  The entry could be a little clearer in the beginning when describing Public Administration Theory.
I would re-word some things throughout and in the overview.
From what I Can see the article has been proofread but may need a little touching up.
I would say work on simplifying some of the language in the article to make it comprehendible for all. 
The arrangement of the article is good for the most part but I would fix the article and put public administration theory development above Types of Public Administration Theory.
I would also add more content in the overview to lead into the overall Idea of Public Administration theory so that there is a clear idea. This will fix the structure and will allow for more cites and information to be added to make for a clear article.
  I like the detail that’s been added to the wiki page by breaking down the types of Public Administration theory.
  I would say not to be so repetitive because I feel like that’s what the majority of the wiki article is right now. Work on rearranging the order so that y’all can express all three theory’s and describe how they work first. Also fix the order or give a little explanation of Max Weber’s theory before discussing it in Public Administration Theory Development. 
71.42.186.202 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review  

message: Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness
Details	Notes
Content 
•	Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points?  
Yes it completely explains the basics of public administration theory
•	What are the key points of the article as you understand them?
The key points are the types of public administration theory, the development of the theories, and the major people involved in public administration theory.
•	Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates?
The article is very detailed and covers all grounds related to the topic
•	Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis?
The article is very well-sourced with viable references for nearly every sentence
Thesis and analytic focus 
•	Does the article focus on a clear  topic? 
The topic is clearly stated and is also made clear in each section of the article
•	Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? 
While the article does only have 5 sources, they are good ones. I would suggest adding more to make sure it is strongly supported.
Representativeness 
•	Does the contribution consider a  variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? 
The contribution is very educational and does not seem to lean one way or another. It is very factual.
•	Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view?
There are no clear points of view expressed, which makes it an unbiased article, which is great. 
•	Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately? 
Yes	
Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing
•	Are all claims supported where appropriate with references?
Each claim is supported with links to the references.
•	How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references?
The article could definitely use some more references to solidify the article, but the sources are good.
•	Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? 
The sources are represented accurately and the form is great.
•	Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? 
The article is written precisely so that it is not confusing, but it is not too simple.
•	Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements?
There are no big statements that are not sourced.	
Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality
•	Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints? 
The article’s point of view is very neutral and does not place weight in an unbalanced way on any particular article.
•	Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts?
There are no opinions stated as facts.
•	Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? 
Every statement is proven and factual.
•	How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance?
Each element was written in approximately the same amount of words, making the article coverage even.	
Wikipedia principle #4: Readability
Language
•	How well written is the entry? 
The entry is very explanatory and helpful, as well as well-written
•	Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? 
There are no grammatical errors
•	Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? 
No misspellings, either.
•	Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? 
While some age groups may find this topic more interesting than others, the content can easily be accessed by all kinds of people.
•	Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? 
The article is not written in an overly complex way 
Organization and style 
Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? 
The structure is clearly laid out and organized
•	Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized?  
Yes, very.
•	Are the paragraphs well structured? 
Each paragraph is well written
Formatting  
•	Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia? 
The article is perfectly formatted for Wikipedia 
	Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings? 
no
	Links: Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics?
yes 
Illustrations 
•	Does the article include appropriate images where possible? 
There are no images in the article 
	
 
Open-ended feedback Questions
Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far?  Why?
I like the way each section is laid out and organized to make it easy to read. This will allow readers to better understand the content.	
Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs?
1.	Add a few more sources
2.	Add some pictures to make it more appealing to the eye	
Charlesvonrosenberg5 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Comprehensiveness: THE LEADING SECTION IS CLEAR AND PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW FOR THE MAIN POINTS OF THE ARTICLE WHICH ARE TYPES PA THEORIES, WAYS THEY ARE DEVELOPED AND NOTABLE PA THEORY PEOPLE. 
Sourcing: THE CLAIMS WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE MAYBE LINKING SOME KEY WORDS WILL HELP READERS UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH SOME THINGS ARE DISCUSSED. 
Neutrality: THE LANGUAGE USED IS NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED. INFORMATION IS PRESENTED IN AN INFORMATIONAL WAY RATHER THAN A PERSUASIVE ONE. 
Readability: THE ARTICLE IS VERY EASY TO READ AND WOULD BE EASILY COMPREHENDED BY A WIDE VARIETY OF AUDIENCES. I WOULD SUGGEST PROOFREADING TO MAKE SOME SENTENCES FLOW BETTER. 
Open Ended Questions: THE SECTIONS IN THE ARTICLE WILL PROVIDE READERS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC. MORE LINKS SHOULD BE USED IN THE ARTICLE TO ADD TO CREDIBILITY AND HELP USERS UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THINGS ARE BEING DISCUSSED.
StephGarrett7 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Holden, William N. "Post Modern Public Administration in the Land of Promise: Th E Basic Ecclesial Community Movement of Mindanao." University of Calgary, 2009. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. 
Burnier, DeLysa. "MAKING IT MEANING FULL: POSTMODERN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM." Administrative Theory & Praxis 27.3 (2005): 498-516. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. 
Nicke, Patricia Mooney. "ON THE CONVENIENCE OF “POSTMODERN” PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION “AND” THE STATE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF MODERN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS A LEGITIMIZED STATE." Administrative Theory & Praxis 30.3 (2008): 344-48. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. 
Ventriss, Curtis. "THE POSTMODERN CONDITION AND THE CHALLENGE OF RETHINKING THE FOUNDATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION: A CRITICAL INQUIRY." Administrative Theory & Praxis 27.3 (2007): 552-60. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballerinarunner (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodern Public Administration Bibliography  

message: Miller, Hugh T., and Charles J. Fox. Postmodern Public Administration. [Electronic Resource]. n.p.: Armonk, N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe, c2007., 2007. Texas State - Alkek Library's Catalog. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Spicer, Michael W. "Reconciling Postmodern Public Administration And Constitutionalism: Some Reflections On The Ideas Of Stuart Hampshire." International Journal Of Organization Theory & Behavior (Pracademics Press) 13.1 (2010): 39-59. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Nickel, Patricia Mooney. "On The Convenience Of "Postmodern" Public Administration "And" The State For The Continuation Of Modern Public Administration As A Legitimized State." Administrative Theory & Praxis (Administrative Theory & Praxis) 30.3 (2008): 344-348. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Ventriss, Curtis. "The Postmodern Condition And The Challenge Of Rethinking The Foundations Of Public Policy And Administration: A Critical Inquiry." Administrative Theory & Praxis (Administrative Theory & Praxis) 27.3 (2005): 552-560. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
King, Cheryl Simrell. "Postmodern Public Administration: In The Shadow Of Postmodernism." Administrative Theory & Praxis (Administrative Theory & Praxis) 27.3 (2005): 517-532. Business Source Complete. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg81 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodern Bibliography Dustin 

message: "Trends in the Study of Public Administration: Empirical and Qualitative Observations from Public Administration Review, 2000–2009." - Raadschelders. Web. 09 Mar. 2016.
Cheryl Simrell King, Kathryn M. Feltey and Bridget O'Neill Susel
Public Administration Review
Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1998), pp. 317-326
Miller, Hugh T.; Fox, Charles J.; and Marshall, Gary S., "Postmodernism, “Reality” and Public Administration: A Discourse" (1997).
Faculty Books and Monographs. Book 237
Ozcan, Kerim, and Veysel Agca. "Traces of Postmodernism in the New Public Management Paradigm." Http://www.todaie.edu.tr/. Sept. 2010. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.
Burnier, DeLysa. "Administrative Theory & Praxis." Http://www.jstor.org/. Sept. 2005. Web.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyoneButTrump (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodern Public Administration--Connor P.  

message: Bogason, P. (2008). Public Administration under Postmodern Conditions. Administrative Theory & Praxis, (3). 359.
Burnier, D. (2005). Making It Meaning Full: Postmodern Public Administration and Symbolic Interactionism. Administrative Theory & Praxis (Administrative Theory & Praxis), 27(3), 498-516.
Eagan, J. L. (2009). The Deformation of Decentered Subjects: Foucault and Postmodern Public Administration. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior (Pracademics Press), 12(1), 141-162.
Frederickson, H. G., Larimer, C., & Smith, K. (2011). The Public Administration Theory Primer. New York: Westview Press.
Spicer, M. W. (2005). Public Administration Enquiry and Social Science in The Postmodern Condition: Some Implications of Value Pluralism. Administrative Theory & Praxis (Administrative Theory & Praxis), 27(4), 669-688.
Sepsy1056 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodern Public Administration Bibliography- Iliana S. 

message: The article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points. The key points of the article are to make a differentiation between postmodern theory and the postmodern era as well as being able to differentiate between post-modernity (period of time) and postmodernism (theory/philosophy), and Postmodern theory evolved out of the postmodern era. The contribution does includes a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates. The points are well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis. The article focus on a clear topic which is the public administration theory that does include detailed scholarly support. The contribution does consider a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars. The contribution does take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view as well. Nuances and subtle distinctions are clarified appropriately. Claims are supported where appropriate with references and the references are reliable but could have more references. Sources are represented accurately, with references following an approved form. The language is pretty precise and the article did not seem to contain un-sourced opinions or value statements. The article seemed to have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints. The article seemed to avoid stating opinions as facts as well as avoiding stating seriously contested assertions as facts. In all the coverage seems pretty well balanced but could possibly have more information if possible. In all the entry is well written and sentences seem to be carefully crafted to be clear, while avoiding passive voice and grammatical errors. I think the entry was proofread and is assessable to Wikipedia's broad audience and the complex language is avoided for the most part. The article’s structure is clear and the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places when needed. It has a clear focus and is it well organized including well organized paragraphs. The submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia and the sections have headings. The entry links to a wide variety of other entries and there are sufficient links to relevant related topics. The article does include appropriate images when necessary and these images are used in accordance with the image use policy the images are appropriately captioned.
Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far?  Why? I did not see how the page looked beforehand, but I like how they have a lot of information on this Wikipedia article. There is definitely enough information where you leave the site full of new knowledge.
Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? The article could have more references for how much information they have and also the smaller sections could have a little more information which could bring about the more references that have been suggested.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baileywelty (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review  

message: Content 
•The information is useful and relevant to the article and explains the different types of public administration and their importance, along with contributors of the theories 
Thesis and analytic focus 
•The topic is very clear. It could use more references. 
Representativeness  
•All the different forms of public administration theory are explained and it does a good job at exploring people that contributed to the theories 
Sourcing
•I feel that while there are not a lot of references, the information is well supported.
Neutrality
•I think that the article is neutral, information for the different topics is well balanced. 
Readability
Language 
• Article does a good job at being easy to read even though it covers multiple topics. 
Organization and style  
•Everything is well structured and couldn't find any problems with the organization. 
Formatting  
•I feel like there could be more references in certain paragraphs and the postmodern public administration theory paragraph seems to have a link incorrectly cited. 
Illustrations
•The article could feature more pictures, only two of the three leading contributors have pictures. 
Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far?  Why? I really like how well the information is balanced because it makes it easy to read even though there is a lot of material covered in the article. 
Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? Add more sources, there are some paragraphs that only use one source. The section that covers important figures in public administration seems to be lacking outside links and references. Acv22 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review  

message: Comprehensiveness
•	The first paragraph includes a descriptive, clear overview of the public administration theory.
•	The key points of the article are the different approaches of public administration such as classical public administration theory, new public management theory and postmodern public administration theory.  The authors also include the important figures of the public administration theory, definitions and descriptions of each theory. They also included the ways that the classical, new and postmodern public administration theories are used in the United States and United Kingdom. 
•	The contribution includes an ample amount of information on their topic, and it included core material about public administration theory.
•	The points are well supported and explained throughout their article.
•	The article focuses on the topic clearly, as well as the way it was developed, different figures in public administration theory and the three main approaches. 
•	The article included credible sources throughout, making their claims valid.
•	The article included perspectives from up to eight scholars.
•	The article includes the different theories like that of Max Weber’s Woodrow Wilson’s and Fredrick Winslow Taylor, as well as the classical, and postmodern public administration theories.
•	Each method and theory is labeled so I would say that the nuances and distinctions are clarified appropriately.
Sourcing:
•	There were references needed under “Classical Public Administration Theory” because they put a specific date. Also under “Max Weber” where there is a specific date, “New Public Management-United Kingdom” and under “Classical Public Administration Management.”
•	The references come from academic articles and books so I would say they are reliable, but they could use more citations where the dates and statistics are.
•	Yes, the sources are represented accurately.
•	Yes the sources don’t overstate any claims; they are credible and represent the evidence provided.
•	Yes, the article contains un-sourced dates (which are specific and need to be cited).
 Neutrality
•	The article is neutral, only stating facts that are mostly cited and it gives examples of the three different theories, equally.
•	The article does state facts, but not opinionated facts.
•	The article avoids contested assertions as facts.
•	Each key element is equal, and there are equal example for each.
Readability:
•	Very well written, readable and organized.
•	The sentences were clear, and error free.
•	The were no typos or errors that I found.
•	I believe the entry is accessible for a broad audience and it is easy to read for all levels.
•	I did not read anything in the article that was too complex.
•	This article included very well structured subheadings and was organized clearly.
•	Each paragraph was well structured.
•	Each topic was relevant and it had good/sufficient formatting, despite the slight citations that were missing.
•	The article includes images where possible, but is lacking for Frederick Winslow Taylor.
•	The image follows policy.
•	The images that are there, are captioned appropriately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules214 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEER REVIEW 

message: Content
Well it does touch base on the article's main points and they are easy to understand to look forward to reading the new material. I believe this group covers the points that will be discussed within the sub-paragraph. I do see evidence, but it is not too sufficient to be reliable, add more sources for credibility.
Thesis and analytic focus
It does but there is not enough content and there is no detailed scholarly support.
Representatives
Not exactly I see a worthy idea that could be a great contribution to this page. There are competing points but not an exact argument unless there is more information to back those points up. There is technically only one source that is stated and that is not sufficient support. The point is that there is a small paragraph that does not elaborate extensively on the subject.
There are also grammatical and punctuation errors that need attending to. I believe there should be smaller sub-groups about regions in the United States and then tie it all together in conclusion. The organization is okay, but just needs more information. In addition, the formatting is okay but could be refined as more information is added on to it. There is no illustrations listed but I believe that is option and up to the group if necessary.
 
The article is clear and gets to the point. I just see that there is a new subgroup that brings a new perspective to the article and I would like to see more information available. I have repetitively stated that there should be more information and another view point for the US.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anayanesgarcia (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review