User:ΑΠΟΛΛΟΗ/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
On the Freedom of the Will

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The psychology behind the choices that people make in politics and society is vital to understanding the development of culture and thought in a nation. This review o Schopenhauer offers a concise and focused logical defense for the expression of people's will and motives. This is necessary in understanding how to dismantle underlying prejudices, and advancing towards a better state of things. To most readers, this article is easily digestible and formatted in a way that allows for efficient navigation and verification of sources.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

While the first sentence, and first paragraph in general, offers a well rounded view of Schopenhauer's ideas on perception and freedom, it lacks much explanation or citation on what the terms mentioned actually mean. Words like "phenomena" and "noumena" are things that a new student to metaphysics might not fully understand. In the Talk section, the original editor explains that knowing these terms is a prerequisite for Schopenhauer, and should have been learned in a reading of Kant. However, assuming that there is a "right way" to read Schopenhauer, and learn knowledge in general, is not an appropriate attitude for an explanatory Wiki article. Also, the language used can be very confusing to both non-native English speakers as well as people with different dialects of English. The first sentence of the second paragraph "Essentially, Schopenhauer claimed that as phenomenal objects appearing to a viewer, humans have absolutely no free will." reads poorly, which seems to be a lacking in the English language rather than the author. Is the "human" the "phenomenal object"? Or is this meant to be a broad commentary on "phenomenal objects" which were failed to be defined in the Lead? Overall, to the experienced philosopher, this [age might be independently helpful, but to the general audience it is not.

The formatting, as well as the overall approach to this topic seemed very appropriate for a summary of Schopenhauer. Due to the fact that this material was published nearly 200 years ago, it cannot be updated directly with information about Schopenhauer himself. However, the author included several quotes and anecdotes from more contemporary philosophers which continue to add to the established question of freedom.

The quality of writing is on par with any other analysis of a philosophical treatise. Again, the only lacking factor in this article is the fact that it assumes of level of understanding on the subject that should not be expected in an article like this. The tone is one that easily allows for edits and corrections that would not obviously conflict with the author's cadence, which perfectly encapsulates the function of Wiki edits.

This analysis offers a balanced collection of both the author's interpretation and citation from Schopenhauer and later philosophers, giving it an atmosphere that is easily approachable.

The only improvements that should be added are that the quotes from secondary authors should not be as lengthy as they are, as the article is not about their work, and that the information about abstract concepts like "phenomena" should have their own section for digestion. The purpose of philosophy, especially in this style on Wikipedia, should be to invite others to conclude their own truths with the aid of prior thinkers. By not including foundational information like those definitions, this article lacks that purpose.