User talk:Coolguy500
| This user is a student editor in Western_Washington_University/History_of_Ancient_Greece_(Spring) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Coolguy500, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Brianda and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Techne Peer Review
[edit]Kcub27 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is the link to the page of my peer review of your Techne article sandbox: User:Coolguy500/Techne/Kcub27 Peer Review
Down below is also the contents of my peer review:
The Lead Section:
- Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
- Partially
- I like how the lead discusses the definition and the complexity surrounding it
- I like how you mentioned the difficulty that philosophers had defining the term as well as a modern term that might be similar in use and function
- Could you better the line regarding practical knowledge, by either providing the definition of practical knowledge and/ or by rephrasing the line to something like "today the modern definition and use of the term practical knowledge is similar to the ancient greek definition of techne"?
- Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
- Partially
- Once again, I like how the lead discusses the definition and the complexity surrounding it
- Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
- No, yes, no
- I like how you have removed the in depth portions of the terms complexity, unlike the original article, and have saved them for the body of the article
- In order to strengthen the lead, like you had stated, could you add a line or two mentioning the three main philosophers, and maybe their key differences (just make sure to not go into too much detail, otherwise the article will have the same problem it currently has)?
Clarity of Article Structure:
- Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
- Yes
- I like how the article starts off with the definition of techne and then discusses the differences each philosopher had in their definition of the term
- I like the information you have added on each philosopher and their differences, as well as the order in which you have presented each philosopher
Coverage Balance:
- Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
- Yes, no, no
- I like how the lead is brief and that the philosopher section is in depth and ordered in a way that shows the differences of each of their definitions well
- While we know there is information about differences in the definition between philosophers, is there information about the change or differences of definitions throughout history, and if so could you add such information/ add a history section to the article if there is enough warranting a section?
- Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
- Yes, no
- I like how you have found multiple viewpoints as well as supplied them with multiple sources
- If there are more "significant" differences of definitions by other philosophers, could you add them to the article?
- Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
- No
- I like how you have added an additional philosopher to the article, as well as added more information regarding the other two
Content Neutrality:
- Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
- No
- The content is neutral
- Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
- No
- There is no use of un-neutral phrases
- I like how you have removed the existing un-neutral phrases from the current article
- Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
- No
- There are no claims on the behalf of unnamed groups or people
- Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
- No
- There is a balance of varying viewpoints and aspects of the topic
Sources:
- Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
- Yes
- I like how you added additional reliable sources, for your information about each philosopher
- Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
- No
- I like how you have added additional sources, that each strengthen/ back the information regarding each philosopher
- Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
- No
- Your statements are sourced and presented accurately
Kcub27 (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Techne Peer Review
[edit]peer review test Winklec3 (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
The Lead Section – will state the most important information, give good overview of the rest of the article. It will be concise but avoid repeating the article content.
-Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? A little, I feel as though there could be a slight addition to the importance or relevance in later times.
-Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? For what's completed, it generally does reflect the important information.
-Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No not that I could notice. Yes, the lead is partially missing but that was made clear by the writer. No, I thoroughly enjoyed all the information that was included and I don't believe that there's anything that isn't important.
2. Clarity of Article Structure – each important aspect of the article should have its own clear and distinct section
-Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The information presented did make sense. I enjoyed reading about the philosophers and their experiences with the term.
3. Coverage Balance – the article should be a balanced summary of existing resources without a dominant viewpoint
-Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Yes, each section doesn't seem to be too long or too short. Everything seems necessary and nothing it unrelated to the topic. I liked how you were able to connect many different people to the term.
-Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? To my knowledge, I believe this article contains a decent amount of perspectives and viewpoints which I thought was nice to read about. Perhaps there is another individual's viewpoint that can be added to further boost the article.
-Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article does not try to draw conclusions.
4. Content Neutrality – the article should not try to persuade the reader of a specific idea or view
-Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, the content doesn't suggest anything.
-Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No, the phrases used are natural and dont feel biased.
-Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No it does not.
-Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No, the article makes sure to have information from both sides, not just one.
5. Sources – article content should be supported by good and reliable sources
-Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, most of the statements in the article come from a reliable source.
-Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, there are many sources that are provided. One thing I liked about this article is that the references tripled in size compared to the original article.
-Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately. No, the sources seem to be presented in a correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklec3 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)