Jump to content

User talk:Abbysinc/sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

King, C. S., & Stivers, C. (1998). Government is us. Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era.

Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 364-369.

Stivers, C. (2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. Sage Publications.

Stivers, C. (2008). Governance in dark times: Practical philosophy for public service. Georgetown University Press.

Stivers, C. (2000). The reflective practitioner. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 456. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbysinc (talkcontribs) 15:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

Content All of the content does seem to relate with Camilla Stivers. The lead section has a clear overview of the articles main points. The main points of the article are the intro, early life, education, recognition, and scholarly work. The content is all very informative with great evidence and analysis. Thesis and Focus The article does focus on a clear topic, and it also includes scholarly support that goes well with the article. Representativeness It has many perspectives and views, this article is not bias in any form. All of the claims are supported with a ton of different references, this makes it very helpful. The language seems to be very precise. It does not have any assertions used as facts. All of the sections are also very equal in length. Language The entry seems to be very well written, it looks like they put in time and great effort. I did not find any grammatical errors, it is also very clear to help with all different kinds of audiences. Organization The structure is very simple and clear, that makes it very helpful. It has a clear focus and the paragraphs are all very well written. Formatting All of the article follows the formatting details of Wikipedia. Feedback Q1. I love the way it was structured very well, and easy to read. Q2. Maybe just making each section a little longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by German1995 (talkcontribs) 16:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]