Talk:POSDCORB

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): Ese.agho, Ejcadena95, Jeremy099. Peer reviewers: B p145, Edwin Valverde, Maa198, SpencerCard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer Cardwell: Peer Review
In this article,” POSDCORB” I examined the legitimacy of the article and its overall detail about the topic. The first paragraph of the article is well written and gives insight to what will be discussed later on. The article includes in-depth information about POSDCORB some main points in the article included: information about the history of POSDCORB, details about important figures who had a hand in reviving it and the criticism they received from other people. The Thesis was well written in the entry and had a very clear topic. The references in the article are spot on with the information given. There were a total of 8 references which I feel was enough to support the information in the article. In the article it gives unbiased information about POSDCORB, however there is a portion in the article that provides information on the criticism POSDCORB received during that time. While analyzing the article I noticed it veered away from opinionated statements. The article has effectively avoided contested assertions as facts. Key features in the article were explained well however, I do feel like a few of the topics in the article could have used a little more detail. After doing my analysis on the article I concluded it was well constructed, easy to understand and very accurate. Two improvements I would suggest would be; one: give the definitions of each of the words listed in the acronym and two: Possibly give more detail on how Gulick's work was used by scholars and practitioners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpencerCard (talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
The lead section of this page gives in brief definition of the acronym and a brief history of the acronym. The lead section does not provide an actual thesis and it does not provide a clear overview on what the article will be about. The key points can be found in the table of contents and they are, Coining of the Acronym, Elaborations, Influence from the French Administration Theory, Place in Management and Public History, Criticisms, References, External links. The page includes information for each key points but some points include a bigger depth of information than others, some of the points lack depth and should include more information. The points could use more sources and references. The references used are accurate and fall in line with the content. The information is structured in a property way in which a reader can understand the information clearly. The points given are not all supported with sufficient information as some points have more content than others. For example the elaborations point has plenty of supporting information for the argument, while, the critisms point seems to lack information. Overall contributor of the article does not lean to one subject or is bias towards the subject. A neutral tone is carried out through the whole page. The page would need a more in depth leading section and the page would also need to include more content supported with scholarly references on some of the key points provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Valverde (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mike Alvarez: Peer Review
Sorry for getting this out to you guys a little late, hopefully your team is still working on the article and my review can help you guys out.

A.) CONTENT The leading section (first paragraph) of the article is really short. As Edwin said above, you did a good job of actually explaining what POSDCORB was, but there wasn't much in the way of an actual overview of what is to come. Adding a sort of thesis into the introduction should fix that though. Your article has six key points that I was easily able to find thanks to your contents bar; they are, in order, coining of the acronym, elaborations, influences from the French administration theory,Place in Management and Public Administration History, criticisms, and your references. I think you guys have done a good job in giving a sufficient amount of information regarding the topic. Before reading the article I had no clue what POSDCORB was, but now have somewhat of an understanding into it! I think you guys did a fine job in referencing your key topics, but could possibly use some more analysis.

B. THESIS & ANALYTICAL FOCUS The article does not provide a clear thesis for what is to come, while I think you guys did a good job in informing us on your key points, I think that some more key points ought to be added in that meshes all your current topics more together. C. REPRESENTATIVENESS You guys have done a good job of providing informative information from a variety of different works and authors. You did a good job of providing multiple points of view on the subject, but your criticisms section could be buffed up a little.

SOURCING While you did a good job of finding a lot of references of differing opinions, it was kind of hard for me to distinguish source was being tied to each key topic. Other than that I think you did a good job, you definitely did not provide any unsourced or biased pieces of information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maa198 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)