User:ArcheoAguila/Practice theory/Bioarchaeo Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ArcheoAguila


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArcheoAguila/Practice_theory?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Practice theory

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.)

Lead

I think the lead is good, but I notice you completely rewrote it from the original article instead of adding to the lead in the original article (notably the framing of collectivist vs individualist approaches as in opposition to each other). I was wondering if there was a reason for this or if you just didn't like it?

Be careful about neutrality of tone! Ex: The sentence in the lead: "These underlying, deeply embedded structures govern all human societies." -- While Levi-Strauss asserts this, it is not an absolute factual given that this it the way the world works. Make sure your language reflects the uncertainties of these theories/makes apparent that these are perspectives, not absolutes.

In this same vein, the last sentence of the lead: "The individual agent is an active participant in the formation and reproduction of their social world" - make it clear that this is a definition of the concept of agency as it is referenced in practice theory, not just a blanket statement about the way the world works.

Content + Organization

I have a couple of organizational points -

First, I think the 'definitions' sub-header under History and Premise should be its own section (as it is in the original article) and should come directly after the lead (as opposed to the original article that has them at the end). Define your terms first, THEN go into history/premise/other theorists, etc. This also allows others to add more definitions, potentially from theorists other than Bourdieu, if applicable. If you're making it its own section you'll also want to include with the definitions which theorists they come from. Also be sure you're linking to standalone wiki articles about these concepts!! (Ex: off the top of my head, habitus and doxa have their own articles you can link in, as does hexis though it is largely in reference to the Greek philosophical applications).

Second, in terms of the 'History and Premise' section, the sub-section on Bourdieu is great but I think you could add in that there are other theorists who have been influential in the development and application of practice theory (ex: Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Foucault) even if they didn't specifically coin the phrase, and (briefly) elaborate on their contributions/influences.

For the 'Anthropology and Sociology' section, could you do a little lead for this section that gives a broad overview of the applications of practice theory in these fields before your spotlights on Giddens and Ortner? Ex - how does Practice theory tie into other broad camps of theory like phenomenology or embodiment, etc...

For the 'Influence' section, I might choose a different header for this section, or just think a bit more on the organization of sub headings under the 'Anthropology and Sociology' sections versus the 'Influence' section - For example, Jean Lave (communities of practice) is a cognitive anthropologist, what is the deciding factor in placing the 'communities of practice' section under Influence and not Anthropology + Sociology? Similarly, Butler is broadly used in anthropological and sociological theorizing as well as feminist scholarship, so why the seemingly arbitrary distinctions between these sections? I think these smaller 'items' in your article could be organized in a way that makes a bit more sense, either all under one section or under differently named sections with clear indicators as to what is distinguishing them (Ex: 'People' versus 'Concepts' that practice theory has influenced, or something like that).

For the 'Gender Theory' sub-sub section, is it just Butler who applies practice theory and gender theory in tandem or are there others?

What about practice theory and race? Is that something you might want to include?

Tone and Balance

Make sure you're properly attributing statements about some of these theories as opinions/perspectives as opposed to absolutes w/ respect to the way the world works. That's mostly just a phrasing thing. It may seem redundant but it should be made absolutely clear.

Also worth thinking about citational representation/balance. Are there any Black or Indigenous scholars that have used practice theory/contributed to practice theory substantially too? Make sure they are mentioned in this!

Citations

Make sure you're using wiki citations throughout! There are a lot of improperly formatted citations in here. Similarly, some things that are listed in your 'Bibliography' are not listed in your 'References' or actually cited in the piece. It might make more sense to turn this into a 'Further Reading' section as opposed to having the redundancy of having a Bibliography + References list.

Overall

Great work and you've expanded this article really well. I'm grateful for the depth you've added to it! I know it's not fully finished and so some of my comments are just fine tuning things you haven't addressed yet.