User talk:Lolizzie/sandbox

Abbysinc's Peer Review on Collaborative Governance-

Content The article provides a useful and clear overview of the topic. The key points of the article are benefits of collaborative governance, problems with collaborative governance, and the effects on society. Considering the lack of information from the original wikipedia page, the contribution provides further insight into the benefits, problems, and effect of collaborative governance. The points could use more references, but the article included scholarly support when appropriate.

Sourcing Not all claims are supported where appropriate with references. In general, the article could use more sources & references to provide support and legitimacy. The language is precise and the article doesn't contain any unsourced opinions or value statements.

Neutrality The article has a neutral point of view, but the topic in general didn't seem excessively controversial. The coverage is fairly balanced. It might be helpful to find a little ore for the "Benefits of Collaborative Governance" section. The article avoids stating opinions, facts, and seriously contested assertions as facts.

Readability The entry is very well written and the sentences are constructed in a way that makes it easy to comprehend while also staying true to the topic of the article. There were a few capitalization errors, but other than that, the article is proofread very well. The article's structure is clear & each section is set apart by a bold heading. The paragraphs are well structured and organized.

Open-ended Feedback Questions:

1. I like how a better definition of collaborative governance has been provided and the vocabulary and language that was used was easy to understand and flowed well.

2. Improvements- - The article needs more references - The article needs more information within the sections

I wish I had more to say, but Mdr87's peer review kinda covered it all :) great job y'all!

Abbysinc (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mdr87's Peer Review on Collaborative Governance
To begin with, the wording and overall meaning of the original Article's definition is substantive. However, it does not have a citation describing where the well-worded definition came from. As far as I can tell by the Rough draft section, this has not been found? I think that if the source of the definition the original article used was found and cited it would help. Or the definition could be given in a different way, and you guys could find the needed citation, it would be perfect. :)

FIRST SECTION (BENEFITS)
'Collaborative governance can be a very pleasant outcome'--this statement seems to be a bit confusing because the reader (or at least me ) doesn't understand where exactly the outcome is coming from or referring to. Like, an outcome to/from what?

I like the overall flow of this section, but it seems to be lacking key information to back up the claims. If there were some added I think it would be perfect.I think because this section sounds so positive and wonderful, that readers would enjoy proof/examples of you know that these things are indeed true. For example, when it is said that "if you govern collaboratively you can steer clear of high costs of adversarial policy making. Another great benefit is the increase of democratic participation. Collaborative governance also helps with making individuals engage in more productive discussions", these just seem like opinions, because there is not any specific citation or example.

SECTION TWO & THREE
These sections seem to flow well, have nice examples, and no bias! :) These 2 sections need very little work. I really like that your team came up with the 'Effects on Society' section, because I feel like that's exactly what public administration is directly linked to.

THE OVERVIEW
This section at the bottom of the page has a really nice step-by-step at the end, and I feel like it successfully pulls the article together at the end.

OVERALL, I would say your team looks like they have done a great job coming up with the general groundwork/layout and gist of what Collaborative Governance means. Add a little more spruce with beefy sources and tidbits of more info/examples here and there, and you got it! (which I'm sure you guys will do before this is all over, I understand this is only a Rough Draft).

SCALES OF WIKIPEDIA PRINCIPLES:
 * COMPREHENSIVENESS: I would give this article a 4/5 in this regard (just needs a bit more info, but hey this is the ROUGH DRAFT stage)
 * SOURCING: I would give this article a 2/5 (not many sources listed as of yet)
 * NEUTRALITY: 5/5
 * READABILITY: 5/5 So far, this article seems to have a great flow, easily readable, and free of grammatical/spelling/syntax issues

Mdr87 (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OPEN-ENDED FEEDBACK QUESTIONS
Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why?

One thing I like most about this article so far is the fact that is seems to shed a positive light on the subject. Also, I really like the fact that it seems the group spent time thinking about what the article should consist of: like the "Effects on Society" section. I feel as public administrators this is a very important topic to cover; when will we as future bureaucrats, etc. NOT want to know how this type of governance would effect the society we live in?

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs?

The two things this article needs are 1. More beefy information to back up some of the general ideas existing in the rough-draft 2. A source for the existing article's definition or maybe a new definition with a source included instead of the original article's

Mdr87 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

= HBW14 Review of Collaborative Governance article =

A Content
There is no leading paragraph at all, apart from the group proposal. The group proposal is not a leading paragraph for the article.

The key points are clearly defined as the following: Benefits of Col. Gov. Problems with Col. Gov. Effects on Society

Followed by an Overview section. A section on the history of the concept is suggested on the article.

There is too much reference to study without reference for the topic to be easily approached by someone outside of academics. With that said, the references take up valuable space for concise writing and, in fact, inflate the article.

With the above being said, there are sufficient references. However, the evidence provided is very circumstantial and all appears to refer to just the Brazilian situation. A wiki article would do best to avoid this type of information and instead steer towards more hard information, as opposed to circumstantial examples.

B Thesis and analytic focus
The article does focus on a clear topic. The overview provides a clear understanding of what the article is getting at.

C Representativeness
Though a couple different sources are used, there is an absolute lack of diversity of opinion. No nuances, or anything of the such, are clarified to help the reader approach the topic.

Sourcing
The references provided are not provided in the context of referencing, but more in an allegorical or providing examples. The article would greatly benefit from better citing and more sources. There is no format to the sources provided. The language is also not clear. The claims made do appear to follow with the evidence provided, though circumstantial and few it may be.

Neutrality
The information provided appears to have a clear bias against the concept of Collaborative Governance. This bias is most likely only manifest due to the clearly greater amount of research put into the cons of the topic. The Effects on Society section states many things as fact which may not necessarily be. Much of it refers to actual factual circumstance, but not all of it is factual statements. To note one particular example: “Few people agree with collaborative governance because it is seen to have many problems” is a statement of hard fact.

The article appears to have a clear side you are intended to take.

A Language
The language in the article isn't filled with any egregious errors of note.

Not all portions of the article use clear language and, to refer to the reader, had to be read multiple times to establish what the concept, Collaborative Governance, actually entailed. A wiki article intends to get the point of the topic across in the first, or leading, paragraph which is then followed by elaborations on the topic. The first paragraph ensures a knowledge of what the topic entails before being followed by more elaborate details.

B Organization and style
The article does appear to have a structure planned for the future and the framework is already in place.

1 Article titles
The titles, though essentially fine and well structured, do have too many capitalized letters.

2 Section organization
There is no lead section at this time.

3 Links
There are no links of any kind.

D Illustrations
There are no images on this sandbox for the article at all.

1
I like the clear and directed structure to the creative process. I am sure that the article being corrected already has much of what the sandbox lacks. You're doing good work with what you've been provided.

2
The article needs more sourcing. At a quick glance, I can immediately tell that there has been no emphasis on bibliography or citing/referencing in any way. The references given in text are simply inadequate for clarifying where the information comes from. Hbw14 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)