Talk:Public service motivation

Untitled

The current Wikipedia article on Public Service Motivation serves to provide the general public with an idea on what PSM is and why individuals choose career paths within government and the public sector as opposed to the private. “The desire to serve the public” is the central theme of PSM and along with social and political factors drives employees to take an interest in the public sector. The articles goes on to discuss the history and concept of public service motivation by authors who contributed to the understanding of this field such as Perry and Wise who coined the term PSM in 1990, and other political figures such as Woodrow Wilson who founded the field of public administration. PSM is influenced by various social, political and institutional factors and failure on the organization's behalf to recognize the motivation of its employees could lead to the discouragement of such individuals from the public sector. Although officials are motivated to serve the public, there is skepticism amongst researchers about the effect of institutionalized values on public servants that could inhibit their initial desire to promote the public good.I feel this article is sitting on the C/B cusp. There are sources and a nice base for the article I just feel there could be a nice expansion from our research. There is a nice basic definition of management but I feel we can broaden it and give great examples of different ways or studies that can paint an even better picture. It has a nice history and background for the start of PSM.

ABluvsU (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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): HuzaniJ, ABluvsU, Nkh2, Rjo15, L bestraever01. Peer reviewers: ARMiller017, Randzeo, Kaleighp, H b80.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review by Ashton Miller

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? • What are the key points of the article as you understand them? • 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? • Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis? b. Thesis and analytic focus • Does the article focus on a clear topic? • Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? c. Representativeness • Does the contribution consider a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? • Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? • Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately?

It's very clear but is not enough information. Needs to be longer in length, but information is there. Common Models, and criticism and alternatives Most of the information is just surface level definitions about what others have studied on the topic. Most of the sub headings do not have information under them. There are grammatical errors as well.

B. Thesis and analytic focus Over all, yes. But most of the information is what is in other studies. Yes, if not too much scholarly support. This makes up the whole article.

C. Representativeness There are many different sources used in this article. Overall yes there is a good tone for scholars, but most of the information was from authors who studied PSM and know how to write it. Not as well as it should be.

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing • Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? • How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? • Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? • Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? • Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements?

Yes, there is a reference when there is needed to be. There are 25 difference sources, but some are red meaning they are not yet completed soucres. Yes, there are the little numbers showing you there is a citation made for the information. This area is slacking because the only thing I learned about PSM is from the sources. Possible in the second sentence in the article. Overall yes, but there is not a lot to go off of because the information is from sources, some is from . Yes they avoided using opinions as facts. Yes, no assertions of ones own viewpoint.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality • 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? • Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts? • Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? • 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? Some sections do not have any information so that is unsettling because I was really looking forward to reading their page.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

a. Language • How well written is the entry? • Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? • Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? • Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? • Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? 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? • Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? • Are the paragraphs well structured?

c. Formatting • Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia? Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings? Links: Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics?

d. Illustrations • Does the article include appropriate images where possible? • Are these images used in accordance with the image use policy? • Are the images appropriately captioned? The writing that didn’t come from other sources as direct quotes was well written. Somewhat yes. No, I have spotted grammatical errors. It is easy to read, but you have to have some preexisting knowledge of personal administration. Yes

B. Organization and Style They do have sub-headings, and headings but some of them have no information below them. The paragraphs could be structured better to break down different ideas within the sub heading.

C. Formatting There are a few links that are good for this topic, but there could always be more. Overall formatting is good. D. Illustrations There are no pictures within the article.

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? They have added a lot of direct quotes from scholarly sources, which is great for referencing somewhere else. By doing this you can read what all they wrote.

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? Need to improve on the grammatical mistakes that have been made.

Add more information under the subheadings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.87.13 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review by Kaleigh Pierce

a) Content

The first paragraph really helped set up the page. It was straight forward and immediately created an understanding of what public service motivation was. Some key points i picked out was the definition, models that help back up the idea of public service motivation and how it works, and deeper studies about what public service motivation is such as the background. The references were good and easy to access.

b) Thesis and analytic focus

The topic stays clear throughout and the report and source entries are where they are required and easy to access.

c) Representativeness

The article used other sources to back up the groups ideas and they used quotes where needed to help define key points that they wanted to make. It was balanced throughout and not simply a reading or definition off one source.

Sourcing: I think the sourcing was very good and accessible. The references were reliable and seemed to flow good with the article. The language was also very precise and sounded scholarly and that they knew what they were talking about. As i mentioned earlier, i like seeing quotes because that helps a reader be sure the information is reliable.

Neutrality: In this article i didn't see any signs of bias or such. I felt that it was neutral throughout and focused on the topic of public service motivation and didn't shy away from it.

Readability: Very readable and well written.

Organization: I was a little intimidated by the amount of reading in the sutdies section right when i first looked at it. While reading i noticed some material talking about the background pro public service motivation and i think that could easily be moved above the models so readers get a little understanding of where it came from and where it is now before getting into the meaty parts.

Illustrations could also be added if y'all find any that would go along good with the article.

Overall: Overall i think it was very nice and well written. I like that it was all straight forward and laid out the idea and what it is. I would look over the studies portion and maybe see if it can be divided up in subheadings or moved, if it can't be then no worries it is still great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleighp (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

peer review

A Content: The lead section introduces the reader to PSM and gives an idea of how to interpret PSM and it’s applications. Using the table it’s clear what sections are coming next, if you just read the intro you would not know. I believe that the contribution is sufficient and covers the core material relevant issues. Whether or not they are missing key debates is unknown. The points are well supported by lots of sources at the bottom, many of which are mentioned in the paragraphs, however not everything is cited. B.Thesis and Analytic Focus Focuses on PSM • Most of the article is sufficiently cited. C. Representativeness • There are a variety of scholars referenced • It does not take an apparently biased tone of writing, which is good. It sounds neutral Sourcing: • Criticisms and alternatives claims are not directly supported • The references are reliable • The sources are appropriately used Neutrality: • Neutral for the most part. • Avoids stating opinion as fact • It is well balanced and none of the parts are given too much focus over the others Readability: • Well written • Uses language like “our/we” • Mostly grammar and spelling error free • Accessible to a broad audience • Complex Language is avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly. • Articles structure is clear, headings and subheadings used appropriately • The article is clearly focused and is organized • The paragraphs are well structured C. formatting • Follows formatting details D. No illustrations Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? I don’t know what the article looked like before, but I like how the article breaks down the different models of PSM, supplies how the studies are done and gives criticisms Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? There were a few spelling and grammatical errors, so just one last run through with an editor. More links to outside pages and the Criticisms and Alternatives Section needs to be cited, there are nor sources mentioned in that area.Randzeo (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)