User talk:Neepanator

good job PLC!

•	Which article are you reviewing?

Bureaucrat

•	Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article, as you understand them?

The introduction states what a bureaucrat is a member or and what it is thought of to do but it needs to bring up what a bureaucrat actually does in government

•	Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use heading and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places?

The structure of the article isn’t very clear. There is only the history section yet there are other things other than history in there. If they were all split up then it would need to be expanded to be a more thorough article.

•	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?

Therefore the coverage isn’t very balance to what it could be. Since there is only one section not many of the key elements of the article are explained completely. A huge chunk of the article is a quote so there isn’t much original content.

•	Is the language appropriate? Do authors use generalized language such as “some” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact?

There isn’t enough in the article for these words to be even used.

•	Does the article contain unsourced opinions or value statements?

No all statements are sourced and there aren’t any biased values in the article.

•	How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why?

For what there is all the references are reliable and reachable. Article only has 3 references, so clearly not enough.

•	Based on both the progress report and the articles current appearance to what it looked like when the group began working on it, how would you rate the progress made so far?

2

•	What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why?

From what I can read of this the best part of the article is the Max Weber definitions of what a bureaucratic official is and what they do.

•	What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation?

I think the article needs more content as well as better separations in the different information shown.

•	How would such improvements contribute to the articles quality?

This would improve the articles quality because it would expand on what is there and make it more diverse.

•	Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the author?

What you have is good, there just isn’t enough content due to the face that we were supposed to have at least 7 references I believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Bonnington (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bureaucrats at work.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Bureaucrats at work.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Max Weber and James Kafka.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Max Weber and James Kafka.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)