User talk:Kcub27
| This user is a student editor in Western_Washington_University/History_of_Ancient_Greece_(Spring) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Kcub27, 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)
Aristippus Peer Review[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Kcub27
- Link to draft you're reviewing
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kcub27/Aristippus?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
- Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
- Aristippus
- Intro:
- Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes! Amazing additions to the intro! your language is neutral throughout, and I think that the information you added was important and made the intro easier to understand.
- Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes! I think that your intro is very thorough and sets up the rest of the article very well.
- Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, No, No! I really like the intro.
- Article Structure:
- Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Yes and no! The structure of the article makes sense the way you structured it as intro, life, philosophy, and works. I also like the table and that you moved the hedonism table to the philosophy section.
- 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 think that all the sections are very thorough and neutral in language. The Life section is really good and I think your contributions make the piece more thorough, but it seems you do not cite that often. The other body sections are good and your contributions are neutral in language, but it still seems as though you do not cite that often in the article.
- Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes and no. However, I wonder if there are more literature you can cite throughout the article?
- Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it does not.
- Content Neutrality:
- Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No.
- Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? No.
- Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? No.
- Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? No.
- 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? The sources you have so far are good. I think that you need to cite more throughout the article. The two sources you have listed seem like good sources to have, but are there other sources you can cite?
- 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. Yes, but I wonder if you can find another source to spread out the references a bit.
- 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! It just seems as though you need to go through and add more sources.
Coolguy500 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Aristippus Peer Review[edit]
1, 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? Yes, I feel as though the additions you made boost the lead and allow the reader to get a good sense of the importance this topic has.
-Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, I believe the lead reflected what was to come in the article and was a good starting point for the reader.
- Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, no, and no. The lead doesn't have any moments when I was reading it that I thought something should be added or removed. The lead was a very good first introduction of the article.
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)? Yes, the article makes sense when reading it fully and there is not places that I can determine that a change should be made.
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, no, and no. The article seemingly balanced attention and content across each topic and it never went away from the main topic. The article also had no moments where I thought some content needed to be shorter or removed, if anything I greatly appreciate the numerous additions made to this article.
-Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? For the most part yes, perhaps an addition to be made can be an inclusion of a different viewpoint from modern times or even just another from contemporary times.
-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 convince a reader of anything other than the truth of the subject.
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, I could not guess any perspectives.
-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 article had no examples of weird or unnatural phrases and it felt very organic to read which is something I appreciated.
-Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, the article makes no claims for anyone.
-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 does not have one main focus on either kind of information.
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, the sources listed are reliable and aren't from blogs, but perhaps more journals or textbooks can be used.
-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. From what it seems, it looks like a lot of the information added can be attributed to just a few sources and, while the sources you use are valuable and good, maybe adding just one more source can make all the difference.
-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. From what I can tell no, the statements in the article can be attributed to the sources listed but, as stated before, maybe adding just a few more sources can change up the article in a positive way. Winklec3 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)