User:Jakes22/Summum bonum/Christopher H. Moller Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username):
- Jakes22
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead has been updated in one sense. It consists of a new citation. However, the lead has been the same from whoever revised it before. Nonetheless, the lead does its job: it mentions the major sections of the article without to going an extensive amount of detail.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Content evaluation
[edit]The content is completely relevant.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The content written is neutral. However, there needs to be more written about any opposition to Kant's view of summum bonum since there may have been philosophers who thought one of the other ideas of summum bonum was better.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The content is backed up by reliable secondary information sources. The mentioned sources reflect some literature on the topic. Do not worry about currency, since the humanities does not have the imperative of having everything as up-to-date as the sciences. Unfortunately, there is a problem: two of your sources, "The Highest Good and the Nature of the Good as Object of Pure Practical Reason" and "God, the Highest Good, and the Rationality of Faith: Reflections on Kant's Moral Proof of the Existence of God", are not accessible. I tried to access them, but I could not even log-in since De Gruyter does not have the University at Albany as one of the institutions with which to obtain the opportunity to log-in. Was there another route through which you got those sources that can be accessed publicly? If there is, just update the citations on where you got them from.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Organization evaluation
[edit]The content is well-written, overall. However, the terms "categorical imperative" and "pure practical reason" need to be defined, even though you explained how they create the good will. In the third sentence a comma should be placed after "in virtue of the doctrine of the highest good", before "Kant postulates." Also, for clarity's sake, the "the" before "three premises" as well as the "that" before the first premise you list should be taken away, and replace the "that" with a colon. For the first premise, it would sound clearer to move the "in full" to the end of the sentence, or to change the phrase "in full" to "completely" or some other synonym. Although I said all that, your work is well-written overall-- just a couple of slight adjustments to make your writing flow a bit better.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]Having the image does help the reader know that they are on the Immanuel Kant section of the "Summum Bonum" article by seeing the famous bust of him. The image is well-captioned, and it adheres to the copyright regulations set forth by Wikipedia on the ground of it being in the public domain. The layout is fine.
For New Articles Only
[edit]If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
- Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?
Overall evaluation
[edit]The content improved the article's quality because the more information had on the summum bonum that is out there, the more that it can be explored, argued for, and debated amongst the public and academics alike. The content's strengths are its simplicity in its writing style: it is written in a way that flows, like reading a great novel; also, the article is well-cited by reliable secondary sources. Improvements come down to making the writing a bit clearer and explaining two key ideas to Kant's theory of summum bonum. Outside of that, coupled with the great connections and image of Kant, I think the article is ready for Wikipedia.