User talk:Gonzales5064/sandbox

The article seemed to be highly plagiarized and taken from another webpage. Overall, the article did not have enough information present to an effective article. There are several discrepancies and proper citations need to be made. Although short, the article is mostly relevant.

JR

66.112.227.24 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hoogenboom, Ari. "The Pendleton Act and the Civil Service." JSTOR. Oxford University Press, Jan. 1959. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"Patronage, the Pendleton Act, and the Power of the People†." Patronage, the Pendleton Act, and the Power of the People. The University of Texas at Austin, 03 Feb. 2003. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"Pendleton Act." 1833 : US History for Kids ***. N.p., 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Schultz, David A., and Robert Maranto. "4." The Politics of Civil Service Reform. New York: P. Lang, 1998. 49-71. Alkek Library. Web.

Taso, Kind K., and John A. Worthley. "Chinese Public Administration: Change with Continuity during Political and Economic Development." Off Campus Database Authentication. American Society for Public Administration, Mar.-Apr. 1995. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

Theriault, Sean M. "Patronage, the Pendleton Act, and the Power of the People." The Journal of Politics 65.01 (2003): 50-68. Alkek Library. Web.

This is just a schedule I came up with to use in the mean time, feel free to use it or change anything on it. We do not have to go by this but it gives us somewhere to start.

March 24- Have every bibliography and changes posted to Austin's sandbox March 25- project proposal due March 30 or April 1- review changes made by professor April 1 or 3- discuss ideas and changes about page with group (after peer teach) April 5- meet as a group to make changes to our Wikipedia page, assign sections to each memeber April 12- have your sections done by this day, meet to review changes April 19- group work day April 26- finishing touches April 29- group presentation, group reflection May 4- article revision due Jasminecelineperez (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review Jake Wiggins

Content

- First paragraph does a good job of giving clear overview.

-Key points: what the Pendleton act does, why the act was needed.

-well-focused on topic.

-"effect" could use more evidence/references

Sourcing

-All claims had appropriate sources (except for one in history).

-only 5 sources, could use more.

Neutralize

-Seems to do a good job of being unbiased.

-Not too opinionated.

Readability

-Well written, no obvious grammatical errors.

-Rhetoric is not too complex.

-Not sure why there is a sub-title at bottom (organization).

-No illustrations.

Questions

-The history behind the Pendleton act puts the the piece of legislation

- 1. More explanation in each of the three subtitles (just one or two sentences per topic).

 2. Fix the "Citation Needed" in History  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggins jake (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) 

Article Evaluation by Toni Schach

a. Content
The outline posted to the sandbox doesn’t include the lead paragraph - keeping the existing lead paragraph? I understand the main points to be the definition, history of the act and the effects. This contribution does contain sufficient information to gain a good understanding of the act, what lead to it and what happened after it was enacted. The points are well supported, but there are only 2 sources cited - a few more might be helpful.

b. Thesis The article focuses on a clear topic and does not stray to other topics. There are only 2 sources, one of which is a website so some more scholarly support could be useful.

c. Representativeness The contribution only uses the references that were already cited on the existing article and does not add any new ones. While this is a topic that is more factual and not really debated, more sources would help credibility. There are no competing view points to be presented with this act. The team did a good job of only stating facts and not writing in any bias. Claims are supported with existing references only. The existing sources are reliable, however there are too few sources. Sources are represented accurately. The language used is precise however there are some claims that are not supported - example is the last statement in effects listing years, a citation would prove useful there. The article does not contain unsourced opinions, only unsourced statements of fact. The article maintains a generally neutral point of view throughout. The team did a good job of not stating opinion as fact. The article does not state and seriously contested assertions. The coverall is well balanced and gives ample coverage to the sections.

Language: The entry is clearly written and uses proper grammar. An active voice is used throughout. The entry appears to have been proofread and is accessible to a broad audience. The ideas are clearly and simply stated.

Organization: The structure is clear and the headings are appropriate. It is well organized and the paragraphs are an appropriate length.

I like that the group has split up the existing article into easy to reference sections that clearly explain the act. I think two areas of improvement would be adding more sources and perhaps a longer analysis of the long-term effects of the act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmschach (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Kenneth Butts

comprehensiveness:

• Good lead section just enough information to understand the Act
• Its not that long of an article but it gets the job done
• Points are supported by evidence
• Clear focus
• mostly relies on one reference in the article
• balanced view

sourcing:

• yes the article is supported with references
• only has a couple of references
• precise language

neutrality:

• Balanced and neutral point of view

readability:

• Well written
• Easy read
• First sentence of the effects section could use clarification
• Clear structure
• Well organized

questions:

• It gives the reader a good understanding of what the Pendleton Civil Service act is
• It’s a little short and could use more refereces