User:AlmaAb11/Psychophysical parallelism/A1c23 Peer Review

Great job!
The content added is relevant to the topic, it is neutral, it is equally divided in the two main sections (Psychophysical Parallelism vs Epiphenomenalism, and Relation to Causal Closure). It is well organized with two straight-forward titles. Good use of examples to further explain ideas. Clear sentences at the beginning of paragraphs that set up the new content.

Recommendations:

- Add an overall title that covers both subtitles to better explain why the information is being added.

- Explain why the comparison between Psychophysical Parallelism and Epiphenomenalism is being made. Is it to help better understand the idea of Psychophysical Parallelism with something that opposes it?

- Perhaps add a little explanation on what dualism is and how it relates both ideas together before mentioning the differences.

- Find a synonym for "events", especially for the third sentence.

- Explain more the example of cutting the avocado. It is a great idea to add it but if expanded a bit more would help the point get across better. Not clear how mental states like pain, irritation or sadness are caused by neural reaction in the case of Epiphenomenalism. Also, maybe make more emphasis on the fact that there is no relation whatsoever between pain and neural reaction for Psychophysical Parallelism "triggered in coordination" might confuse some readers.

- The relation of psychophysical parallelism and causal closure is well written.

- I think overall the second paragraph is good and explained well, but making the terms a little simpler to understand with reference points, for people who do not know what a certain term is, if there are simpler examples, they can understand it better.

- I think that the paragraph can use a little more elaboration and each term should have a link to a philosophy website.


 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)