Talk:Rational-legal authority

message: First entry. Stub. I will by adding more info and correcting grammar and stuff in the coming days, hopefully I wont be starting late at night again. This is based on more developed Charismatic authority article, and follows the development of Max Weber ideas (see Talk:Max_Weber). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading text 

message: How about a discussion of modern political parties in terms of this analysis? MaynardClark (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Parties

message: Overall, the Rational-Legal Authority article is in good shape. The introductory paragraph defines the subject well. In a comprehensive and easy to understand way. There are several links to related ideas which help to flesh out the concept. The article is then split into two sections: Rational-Legal Authority and Rational-Legal Leadership. The first of the two sections expands upon the definition and its origin in Max Weber. It does a good job of delineating between Rational-Legal Authority and the other two forms of authority, Traditional and Charismatic. Weber’s concept of Ideal Types could be fleshed out more, and the imperfect and combinatory nature of the three types could be expanded.  The concept of Legal rationality and legitimacy as defined by Weber is well covered, as is its role in the formation of the modern state. Weber’s definition of a “modern state” is well applied. Finally; the article describes some of the traits present in leaders in a Rational-Legal government, and separates political leaders from bureaucratic officials. The article’s biggest issue is its lack of citations, with no sources cited at all in the entirety of the article. The definitions and descriptions used are well put together, make sense, and are easy to understand, but could be entirely made-up for all I know. 
Wikipedia Principle #1 (Comprehensiveness): the information presented in the article appears to be comprehensive in scope.
Wikipedia Principle #2 (Sourcing): There are no cited sources. 
Wikipedia Principle #3 (Neutrality): The article in neutral in tone.
Wikipedia Principle #4 (Readability): The article is easily readable and understood. 
D h200 (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: While reading this article I considered the four Wikipedia principles, the first being comprehensiveness. The content of the lead section gave an overview of what the topic is about, and combined with the second paragraph it summarized the article very well.  The focus of each section is relevant to the topic, but it doesn’t include any scholarly sources. By telling where the concept originated from, it gives the reader a good idea of its history. I would be interested to know if other scholars interpret Rational-Legal Authority the same as Max Weber. In the external links section one link leads to an unavailable website, but the other link adds to the comprehensiveness of the article. The next Wikipedia principle is sourcing, which is where this article needs the most improving improving. Adding reliable references will make the article more credible. The third principle is neutrality, which this article does a good job at. The focus is on strictly on the facts in a non-bias way and the length of each section is appropriate. The last Wikipedia principle is readability. The article is well written and in a way that the vast Wikipedia audience will be able to understand. The organization and formatting of the article is structured in a way that was hard for me to follow. Reorganizing the sections and headings would be a great improvement. When the group adds their contributions, they will have a good article on their hands. Miranda Miner 04:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The overall content of this article is very good, however there are no sources to back up any information presented in this article. This leads it to not have any scholarly backing which means anything in there could potentially be incorrect. I am not saying that anything is made up, but without and sources this could very well be a potential issue. I did enjoy how this article was set up though, its progression through its emergence and the modern status of legal rational authority are well put. This article relies a little to heavily on Max Weber i feel like, I would think that since this has been around for awhile that there surely could be more scholars who have weighed in on this topic. Most of the topic seems to be based entirely off of Max Weber, even if he is the main point of authority. Coming into this article I had absolutely no idea what Rational-legal authority had been but once reading through it twice to double check some of the concepts I feel as if i have a relatively good understanding in what it is. Even though there has been no additional contributions just yet with a little bit more explaining, an addition of citations and sources, and just a movement of a couple topics around this article will be in much better shape.
WilliamCadman (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review