Talk:Level of consciousness (Esotericism)

This page is extremely informative and well put together. It is very obvious that you guys did an extensive amount of research on the topic and put a lot of time into the page. The best part of the page is how you incorporate pictures into each section to make it extremely clear what you are discussing. It makes it a lot easier to scroll through the page when you can get a summary by just glancing at the images. The one thing I would work on is a clearer summary. For someone who is completely unfamiliar with the topic of consciousness it may be tough for him or her to grasp the main idea just from your summary. That is really the only change I would consider making because overall the page is very good and does not seem biased at all. Mularkey41 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

peer review by kchubb28

Well-written: This Wikipedia page is very well written, it has the same level of language as other popular Wikipedia page. You did a great job making your articles sound professional and accurate.

Comprehensive: You already covered a lot of information about this topic and went into great detail; I do not think it is necessary to add much more factual information on each section/category. You may want to add more information to the introduction paragraph. I would suggest discussing what the rest of the page will be about in the introduction (give a little information about each of the main sections listed in the contents). Also, you could consider adding pictures and more background information about the influential people that are frequently mentioned throughout your article.

Well-researched: It is obvious that a wide-ranging amount of research was done on this topic. You clearly have found a lot of great information and factual evidence. Your “notes” and “references” sections are very extensive and list a lot of helpful websites that the reader could do to for further information (excellent job!).

Neutral: Since a lot of facts are given with references to back them up, the information provides seems to be unbiased. You have done a great job with listing different opinions and beliefs on the levels of consciousness without implying that one method is better than the other.

Formatted appropriated: The format is perfect for a Wikipedia page. You have a lot of different sections which helps to break up the information and make it less overwhelming. Having a lot of sections also helps the reader quickly find the specific information they need. The use of charts to display different levels of consciousness makes the information easier to understand and read.

Overall, you have done an excellent job and I do not have a lot of recommendations; you seem to be almost completed with your page.

Kchubb28 (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

peer review by Erock58

Surprisingly, your page is the only one of its kind on Wikipedia even though your topic seems like a popular one, Good Choice! I could not help but notice how close your page looks to an actual Wikipedia page organizationally. One part of your page that I really like is the section about the Eastern and Western perspectives (Titled Theories). The only suggestion that I can make about this section is possibly changing the title of the section from theories to just Eastern Perspectives. Your use of graphs and charts also helps to draw in the viewer of the page and solidify your research (Good Job). Your information is also quite accurate judging from your sources. The one thing you could possibly add are some pictures.Overall this is an authoritative page with a lot of useful information. (erock58)

Peer Review by Klmeyer13

This is a really great start. You're well on your way to a complete, professional-looking Wiki page. I just have a few suggestions.

I think that your definition of consciousness in the first paragraph of your page might be unnecessary. A big challenge in this assignment seems to be judging what material falls under which topic. Since there is a already a very thorough page on the topic of consciousness, I think deleting your first paragraph and linking that page to the word "consciousness" in the fist sentence of your second paragraph would be sufficient.

You also might want to review that second paragraph for clarity. I know that I personally am much more likely to glance over the introduction of a Wikipedia page than to read the entire article. It might just be my opinion, but I feel like other people probably do the same thing, so an introduction to a Wikipedia should be able to be read and understood on its own. It wouldn't hurt to elaborate on the concepts that you reference or add more links to other pages if you don't want to cross into their topics.

I appreciate the use of charts to clearly show the levels of the different theories. I might be missing something, but I thought it was a little unclear where you got the information that you used in the charts. Also, you might want to think about using "History" as the title of your first section. Would something like "Ancient Theories" work better?

That being said, the main content of your article is really impressive. It strikes me as extremely well-written and very in-depth. I get the impression that you have thoroughly researched every facet of your topic. As is, this already seems like a professional Wikipedia article. Really great job!

Klmeyer13 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

peer review by morganf313

I believe this article is very well written. It looks just like a professional Wikipedia page entry and the information seems to be accurate. I do like how you incorporated the tables into your wikipedia entry; however I do think the page itself is quite bland, and could use something (pictures) to grab the readers eye and make it more appealing. There is no doubt in my mine that this page is not well-researched. I was very impressed with the about of information your group was able to obtain. I think the introduction could be slightly longer with more details about what will be discussed, but other than that you're off to a great start. Overall, this wikipedia page seems to be very well-written and easy to follow along too. With the list of references, information, charts and notes, this is a very great start to a professional wikipedia page. I can't wait to see the final product!

morganf313 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by James Hurst

Strengths- This page has a ton of accurate and professional information. The amount of notes and references located at the bottom of the page add validity to all of the information. The depth of the information could add information to even a scholar of this subject. The separation of information is key to the success of this page due to the amount of information. Starting with a brief overview of consciousness and the history of theories is a good idea to lure in some less educated members of society.

Weaknesses- There are very few weaknesses in the Wiki page. However, some of its strengths also can act as a weakness. The amount of information could be overwhelming to many people, but then appreciated by some others. A larger overview of the simpler side of consciousness would be helpful to many readers so that they could relate to the rest of the page. The page is also somewhat boring and could be improved by some pictures or change of format through the page. Again, these "weaknesses" are very minor and could be interpreted differently due to the impressiveness of your page.

The information is well researched and current which allows the reader to fully invest into the information of the page. There is no bias in this page, strictly information. Overall, this page is great and incredibly well-done. Jwhurst (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)James Hurst

peer review by willscroggs

Well-written: The prose is written exceptionally well. I could not find points in the article that needed major reconstruction. I think that you should still edit and polish a little more but your group does not have long to go to until completion.

Comprehensive: There is a lot of information in this article. It is very comprehensive. Almost too much. I would suggest trying to make a tad more concise so that it is not so overwhelming for people to read.

Well-researched: It is very well research. Your group shouldn't worry about the research just polish it up.

Neutral: There are no opinions shown here. Very nice work.

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

Willscroggs (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Pear Review by Ching.sun99

Content/Writing: This Wikipedia topic “Levels of Consciousness” is well organized, edited and mostly well written. The content is rich and detailed and accompanied related graphics and photos. I am very impressed on the length, organization, graphic presentation of this article. There are some suggestions on the writing and content. On the table of content, you have history, which is the origin of the concept, and theories, which have many different perspectives. It would be helpful to summaries or mention this information in the introduction because the reader would want to know where the concept came from and how many theories there were. Making a short description in the introduction would help the readers to connect with the table of content and therefore easier to decide which section in the table of content, if one has a particular interest, the reader should choose to read. The first sentence should be explaining the title “Levels of consciousness” instead of “consciousness”. It is confusing for the reader that if this is definition of the term “consciousness” or “levels of consciousness”.

Organization/Comprehensive: The list of contents is well organized, making the contents very presentable. The history, theories, and attempts to combine theories were also each well divided and organized. Over all the article is comprehensive. It might be helpful to create section describing how the different theories or combined are put to practical use, for example, making another “modern practice” section. However, most of the major facts are presented well. And the information are detailed. The tables created for the articles are very well done. The reader can easily identify the information. It is very detailed and concise writing. Please keep the table format. It would be helpful there is more description for the photos as it was not connect well to the text. I suggest you put a short sentence to explain why the photo is related to the contented it was placed nearby.

Research: From the notes, links and references, I can tell this topic is very well researched. It defiantly provides a through and representative source and published works on the topic of “level of consciousness”. You have made references to reliable sources through published work by authors such as Andersen, Michael Joseph and Robert Wilson. Precise citations are also made clear in the note section. It seems that most the sources are reliable and supported with citations. I suggest you make the introduction connects with more links and sources because it seems that is the section lacking some citations.

Neutral? The content so far is generally neutral. There is no comment made positively or negatively about the different theories, given those theories cannot be proven or agreed upon absolutely. The section of “Attempts to Combine Theories” is also neutral presented. Only facts and the researcher’s statement are presented. Most of the writing is without bias. I think you did a great job of forming an neutral academic tone here.

Formatted appropriate? The formatting in this article is impressive. It has followed Wikipedia style guideline pretty thoroughly. The table of content is well organized. Photos are placed nicely with notation. The tables and charts in each section are clear and easily understood. The notes are listed and cited accordingly. The lists of notes see also, and references are done with professionalism. Although the fonts in the reference seem to be different from the rest of the text, please double check that. Again, in the introduction, there are many terms seemed to be linkable, for example, terms like “spiritual recognition”, “perception” and “stimuli” and so on. Overall, this article is rich with content and well organized. Well Done. Thank you for reading. Ching.sun99 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by thechriskennedy

This is a very good article, and I am quite impressed by it. It is very thorough and covers many different aspects of levels of consciousness. The article is well-written, as the prose is clear and easy to understand, despite this being a complicated topic (at least in my mind it is). The article also does a good job of being neutral, as the theories about levels of consciousness are presented in a fact-based and unbiased manner that informs the reader without trying to suggest what the reader should believe. One of the main strengths of the article is that it is extremely comprehensive. I am no expert on consciousness, but I had no idea there were so many theories on it. While I do not know a whole lot about this topic, I cannot think of anything you could add to make it more complete. The history, theories, and combination of theories have an abundant amount of information, and I have no idea what could be added. I feel that the article is very well researched, as every section is well sourced and cites scholarly articles on the subject. These are good sources to have since the topic is academic in its nature and such references are high quality and reliable. The article is also well organized and does a very good job of following the Wikipedia format. The tables, citations, images, and the layout of the text all follow Wikipedia guidelines. Overall, I think this is a very good article, and I really do not have any suggestions as to how you can improve it.

thechriskennedy (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Carolyn Fagan

This Wikipedia page is very well done. I am impressed with the topic, thoroughness, and formatting.

Well Written: This article is very well written. You do an excellent job of sectioning off the subject matter. I think it would be effective to make your introduction simpler and easier to understand. This introduction should serve the casual web searcher who may be looking to see if this is the right article on the topic. I think you can tweak it to really enhance your page.

Comprehensive: Very comprehensive. I like that you cover the history and the detailed theories. This is the biggest strength of your article.

Well-researched: The comprehensive nature of this page makes it clear how well researched it is. The notes and references you included work well and seem to be respected academic sources.

Formatted Appropriately: Very well formatted. The use of tables, lists, and pictures is effective. You may consider converting the bulleted lists you use for two of the theories into tables so that the formatting is more consistent. It looks good now, but this may streamline it. The headings are working well.

Neutral: This is a neutral article. It's appropriate that you include all of these theories in an unbiased way.

Good job! Carolyn Fagan 05:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)