Peer Review that is in the wrong place

THIS IS NOT MY SANDBOX

Comprehensiveness

Content

Clear overview. A bit wordy, but it covers all necessary info
Key points:

Definition of a whistle blower
Public vs. private sector whistleblowing
Ethics

Plenty of information. Needs to be organized more effectively. Possibly use paragraph breaks within topic headings

Thesis & analytic focus

Clear topic. Scholarly support was not clearly identified within the article

Representativeness

The article seems to take the position that whistleblowing is a positive thing. It provides many examples of how whistleblowing can help the government.
There are many people who believe that whistleblowing can be harmful to society and national security.

Sourcing

References are not presented anywhere in the body of the article.
There are no links to references at the end of the article, only the titles.
No approved formatting available
Not sure which claims are from sources and which are those of the authors

Neutrality

Same comments as those under Representativeness
Ethics section should be expanded more, as the controversy of the ethics behind whistleblowing is a major component

Readability

Language

Fairly well written
Grammar and capitalization errors are apparent
Easy to read
Complex language, where present, is explained well

Organization & style

Sections are jumbled in the sandbox
Headings are used appropriately- need to be rearranged
Needs paragraph breaks within sections

Formatting

Article titles are in need of editing- removal of author, capitalization errors
There are no links available to other articles within Wikipedia, or links to sources

Illustrations

One or two should be added
Not much use for them in this article

Open-ended feedback=

The group added much needed information
Topics covered are ones that are essential to the development of the article
Grammar and organization need editing
More information on the opposition to whistleblowing should be added

Ekraft14 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Project

Hello Rand, what's going on? Look forward to working with you in the future! J r186 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Randzeo! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:36, Friday, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Annotated Bibliography

Kennedy, Brandy. 2011. “Representative Bureaucracy through the Rear View Mirror: A Survey of the Literature.” Conference Papers--Southern Political Science Association 1-45. Political Science Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 15, 2015)

This survey is trying to define and measure the idea of representative bureaucracy. It uses a database that analyzes 89 different works with a number of variables used to define and measure representative bureaucracy. The piece covers how different organizations are demographically represented. It suggests demographics affect political outcomes? It covers different definitions and measurements of representative bureaucracy. It looks skeptically at viewing representative bureaucracy in the context of race, gender, street level, and executive bureaucrats, saying that the study should be expanded to include a variety of levels, organizations and characteristics.

Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. C., & Lavena, C. F. (2014). Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy?. Journal Of Public Administration Research & Theory, 24(3), 537-551. doi:10.1093/jopart/muu006