User talk:Marinedefranciosi/sandbox

Peer Review for Article Draft of Civil Service Reforms of Developing Countries

1. The introduction is missing citations for the definitions and descriptions of Civil Service Reform

2. Civil Service Challenges and Approaches to Reform - Section on the influence of Weberian Democracy

• This section provides a good amount of detail on its impacts of civil service reform, it is also well written.
• While the section makes use of some studies and mentions empirical data, this could be expanded upon further in detail
• The section's title mentions "Civil Service Challenges" even though all the subsections seem to cover approaches to reform (ex. decentralization, top-down vs. bottom up performance monitoring). What are the challenges presented to Civil Service? These could also be included in the article as two separate sections: one on challenges and another on approaches to reform.
• The section also mentions the patrimonial system, but does not provide much detail on this system. The article would benefit from incorporating a section on the patrimonial system as a comparison to the Weberian system.
• Is Civil Service reform influenced by any other models? These could also be explored in comparison to Weberian Bureaucracy

3. Although this is an article on developing countries, the outline does not provide many examples of that case studies from developing countries will be used.

4. It would also be interesting to look at developed countries that have served as examples for successful/non-successful Civil Service Reform.

5. It is unclear what will be covered under Professionalization and Capacity Building.

6. Although an outline is provided on what topics will be defined and explored, the article is missing key scholars who have opinions/perspectives on Civil Service Reform. This would be a useful addition in order to provide an overview of the various perspectives that exist on the topic.

Naomi alyssa (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC) Naomi Santesteban Naomi alyssa (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review - Michael Szpik (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Michael Szpik

Looks like you have a pretty good outline that covers the major subtopics, although I don't actually know enough about civil service reform to know if you covered everything. Here are some specific things I noticed:

1. I like the layout of section 1, seems like you have the necessary subtopics (although remember to fix the title, as the challenges seem to be in section 3). It seems like your plan is to go theory, data, cases for each one. My concern with that plan is that doing a case for each sub-topic could become quite labour intensive. You might consider a separate section for cases where you cover like 2 or 3 cases that each provide examples of several of your previously described variables.. you pick slightly different cases that cover all the variables and maybe illustrate different reform regime types.
2. If the the new public management section is relevant you should keep it. But you can keep your description as concise as possible and include a redirect to its wiki page. over-lap with your other ideas is okay, if New public management is an important school of thought or set of policies you might as well summarize it.
3. Not sure what your plan for section two is. Based on its title, that information might fit naturally in your section 1 subtopics.
4. The lead provides a good list of reforms, but you should some sort of paragraph before it to contextualize the need for reform in developing countries: what problems are the reforms trying to solve? why is this important? maybe the same thing with the section leads, to reiterate the logic of civil service reform and connect the terms to one another.

The draft is kind of short and not annotated, so I'm low on things to say. If you have specific questions or follow-up questions to my comments, put them here and I'll do some further peer review later.

Manuel Balan Review

This is overall in good shape, although it clearly needs more work, given the number of sections where the draft is in outline mode. I agree with the comments above. You may want to avoid spreading yourself too thin by focusing on fewer issues but going more in depth. Good use of sources so far, keep it up and continue the research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)