User talk:JonBorazjani
Welcome
[edit]Hello, JonBorazjani and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.
Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.
Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, if your class doesn't already have one. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.
We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Please answer each of the following questions as honestly and thoroughly as possible in order to provide constructive feedback for the group whose article you are reviewing.
Which article are you reviewing?
Democrats
Does the lead section summarize the article’s key points? What are the key points of the article as you understand them?
The introduction doesn’t summarize the key points of the article. It gives a description of what a bureaucrat is, however it doesn’t give an outline of what the article will discuss. I believe they should give an outline of the key points of bureaucrats. For example: The history of the bureaucrat, the key points that make a bureaucrat, Woodrow Wilsons view of a bureaucrat and then finally what bureaucrats are called in other countries and what their job description is.
Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places?
I believe they should add images of a bureaucrat. They do however use subheadings to break up the page. This makes the article easily accessible to the viewer
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?
The history consumes the article beause they don’t separate Max Webers definition of a beauraucrat. It appears that the history is the entire article. I believe they should ellaborate more on what a bureaucrat is.
Is the language appropriate? Do the authors use generalized language such as “some,” or “many”? Could these references be replaced with fact?
The language is appropriate, there isn’t any generalized language.
Does the article contain insourced opinions or value statements?
Yes, the article refers to Max Webers opinions and Woodwow Willsons statement.
How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Why?
I believe this article should be expanded, because of this, this article requires more sources.
How would you rate the progress made so far?
1 2 3 4 5
I would rate it a 3
What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why?
I enjoy the history of where bureaucracy came from. I like the little facts that were thrown in.
What are two improvements you think the article needs that were not discussed in the group’s presentation?
I believe there should be more information and a shorter quote from Woodrow Wilson.
How would such improvements contribute to the article’s quality?
It would provide more information to the reader. They would learn more about bureaucrats and have more explames of their role in the real world. A shorter quote and more subheadings would also help the reader navigate through the article more easily.
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions for the authors?
No, I think the questions pretty much covered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spfeff22 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)