Talk:Participatory management

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spfeff22, Jam3jr, Djg80, Verokokitas, KCGrimes. Peer reviewers: Johnnyq79, L bestraever01, Jherrera94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer review Turner Coulson

Principle #1 Comprehensiveness a. Content – The article is clearly written and provides all the basic information necessary. Key points including Participatory management, the implementation of, and the differences in various cultures. Very readable and clearly outlined with good structure. b. Thesis – The article is clearly participatory management, and scholarly support is provided and all pertains to the subject. c. Representativeness – There are multiple perspectives and sources from various scholars. Principle #2 Sourcing a. All claims are supported with references that are reliable and non-bias. The language and tone are clear and precise. Principle #3 Readability a. Language- The entry is well and clearly written. Easy to tell it has been proofread and edited well. No language is to complex. b. Organization- Clear outline and focus. Paragraphs are well structured. c. Lead sections and outline all appear to be created with the consultation of the Wikipedia style guide. d. Illustrations- no images on the page. Open ended questions I think the group did a great job of including other cultures in the article. Maybe a section that could be expanded upon in the future and examined further by other Wikipedia writer’s. The article could use some sort of illustration. Also the article could be expanded in implementation. Tkc21 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The article currently possesses very little information on the subject, and is a Stub. There is little to no inclusion of the background of participatory management, nor inclusion of the history of participatory management. The differing methods of participatory management are also absent from the article webpage. Currently, no subtopics exist on the webpage; subsections should be added containing the history of participatory management, effects of participatory management, types of participatory management, and participatory management as it is employed in different cultures. The article presently references the human relations movement of the 1920s; however, little to no information is included regarding said movement. This reference, along with the other historical references mentioned in the article should be expanded upon in the historical subsection to be added to the page. Presently, all information on the page is relevant to the topic; however, the current information requires further support through citations. Despite the aforementioned inconsistencies within the webpage, the current entry appropriately links to other Wikipedia websites; links could be added to new additions to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verokokitas (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review: Ryan Court

Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness a. Content The lead section is clear and provides an overview of the topic. The key points of the article are About (which includes Theories and Shifting to & Implementing Participatory Management sub-sections), Examples of Implementation, Participatory Management in Different Cultures, and Criticisms. It explains participatory management clearly for the average reader, and its content covers most facets of the topic. The contribution contains a sufficient amount of evidence and a clear outline for the article. It contains sufficient references and sources that are cited. b. Thesis and Analytical Focus The article has a clear topic sentence with a strong introduction paragraph. It includes scholarly support where appropriate. c. Representatives The article provides several viewpoints making the article objective and neutral. It includes different theories about participatory management, as well as how participatory management is implemented in different cultures and its criticisms.

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing All claims are supported with references where appropriate. The references are reliable and from scholarly sources. The references are represented accurately and cited in proper format.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality The article has a neutral point-of-view overall. The coverage is neutral, non-bias, and well-balanced. The article examines different sides of participatory management by including its Participatory Management in Different Cultures section. It is written in a mostly objective tone and has a good mix of positive and negative sides of participatory management by including a Criticisms section.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability a. Language The article is well-written and the authors use good grammar and syntax, with only a few minor grammar erros. Overall, the authors use a good mix of vocabulary. The statements are clear and concise. It is accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience because it includes a section of participatory management in different cultures. b. Organization and Style The article's structure is clear and uses a simple format. It includes headings and sub-headings. It is readable. It could It follows proper formatting details of Wikipedia. It reads like a professional Wikipedia article. c. Formatting The article is formatted for Wikipedia with proper structure. It could use more links to Wikipedia articles. It could also have a larger See Also section. d. Illustrations The article would be enhanced with a diagram or image, possibly in the About section in the Theories sub-section. Open-ended feedback Questions Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I like how the article reads like a professional Wikipedia article and has a strong foundation. Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? The article could: 1.) Expand its content, and, 2.) Add more links to Wikipedia articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjc12 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I felt the introduction gave the reader a well rounded consensus of the topic at hand. The key points of the article are: discussion of the different theories of participatory management, the implementation of it, and examples of studies done with Participatory Management. Everything seemed to be well represented by references and I found the editors of the article added a sufficient amount of information. The article did use a variety of perspectives, by mentioning the different aspects in different cultures, as well as referring to arguments against Participatory Management. I found the sources to be appropriately used and represented accurately. The language was precise and showed relevance to the article. There seemed to be a sufficient amount of sources giving the article significant more credibility. The article does an excellent job of expressing all the different viewpoints from a neutral standpoint, and avoids stating opinions as facts, and the balance between sections was appropriate. I feel the article was very well written and the editors did an excellent job of making sure there were minimal grammar mistakes, making the article easy to read. The language seemed to be understandable to a broad audience of Wikipedia readers. The article has a very clear structure that is very easy to follow and the Wikipedia format from section to section followed the right format, making the article very clear cut. The article does not contain any pictures. I feel like the group did an excellent job on expanding the article from a mere stub article, which is what I like most. Through their effort, a reader can actually look up this topic and garner a significant understanding of Participatory Management. The two things I feel like could be touched up are: 1. Perhaps under the examples of participatory management, adding a few more examples or another study or two, to give the reader a more diverse idea of attempted usage of implementing Participatory Management. 2. On the criticism section maybe add a little more input to the last example of "Participatory management has been criticized because it is difficult to combine this practice with a more financially oriented approach to restructuring that may require downsizing." and explain why in a little more detail, why its difficult in this manner. It would give the reader a better understanding and add more "beef" to the article.

Johnnyq79 (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)John Quiser

Peer Review: Lindsay Escalante

a. Content • Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points? Yes, but should go more in depth about the authors and leaders to implemented participatory management into their organizations

• What are the key points of the article as you understand them? Theories, examples of implementation, participatory management in different cultures, criticisms. • Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates? Yes • Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis? Some points require further evidence b. Thesis and analytic focus • Does the article focus on a clear topic? Yes • Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? Yes c. Representativeness • Does the contribution consider a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? In terms of criticisms include the people who criticize participatory management • Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? Yes • Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately? Yes

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

Details Notes

• Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? Yes • How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? Sources are reliable have a good amount of sources • Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? Yes • Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? Yes watch wording though for some sentences • Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements? No

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Details Notes

• Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints? Yes • Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts? Yes • Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? Yes • 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? Each section is about the same length. Key points are elaborated on.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

Details Notes

a. Language • How well written is the entry? Well written there are some grammatical/sentence structure errors so just make sure to re-read and make corrections • Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? See section above • Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? Needs to be proofread again for content and grammatical errors • Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? Yes • Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? Yes b. Organization and style Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? Yes • Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? Yes • Are the paragraphs well structured? Yes

c. Formatting • Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia? Yes

Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings? Yes, the lead sections have the appropriate headings.

Links: Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? Yes d. Illustrations • Does the article include appropriate images where possible? No images and I don’t think they are necessary • Are these images used in accordance with the image use policy? No images • Are the images appropriately captioned? Νο images

Open-ended feedback Questions Open-ended Questions

Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why?

Article gave a good general overview of participatory management. I liked the examples of implementation and studies that were provided within the article as well as criticisms associated with participatory management in terms of the difficulty of implementation.

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? More elaboration about the topics listed in the first/intro paragraph of the article would like to know more about the authors and leaders who advocated for participatory management. There are some minor grammatical errors and sentence structure/wording errors.

L bestraever01 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)