User:Bioarchaeo/Embodiment theory in anthropology/JamesZD online Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bioarchaeo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bioarchaeo/Embodiment theory in anthropology

Evaluate the drafted changes
This is mostly looking really good! You have an extensive swath of the literature covered, with many great references and places for an interested reader to dive in more deeply.Lead:

Rather than "Broadly defined..," maybe start with "In anthropology..."? Embodiment theory in cognitive science is somewhat different.

Also, the opening statement tells what embodiment does, not what it is. It should start with a definition. This follows through in the rest of the lead which says what ideas embodiment disrupts, and is embodiment approaches are against, but not what embodiment theory is and does itself. Maybe add one or two more sentences to the end that say "Embodiment does XYZ ..."

Content/organisation:

I like the breakouts of different thinkers in embodiment theory and it covered a lot of ground very effectively. I did find the organization a little confusing in a few ways.


 * Who gets classified as "precursors" and who are actually embodiment theoreticians was unclear. Mauss, Merleau-Ponty, Bourdieu, and Foucault are listed as "precursors". But MP at least dealt with embodiment directly. It also says that Csordas presents an embodiment paradigm that fuses MP and Bourdieu, that made me think they were a founding embodiment thinker, but for some reason they don't get their own heading?
 * The section on Embodiment in Anthropological Literature was the last (and one of the shorter) sections. Since embodiment specifically in anthropology is the topic It might make more sense to put that before the other, more intersectional, approaches to embodiment. I might suggest an organizational structure that looks more like:


 * 1) Lead
 * 2) Background (Cartesian dualism)
 * 3) Theoretical precursors
 * 4) Embodiment in anthropology - Talk about it *in Anthropology* first then move on to
 * 5) Embodiment in Feminist Theory
 * 6) Racialized Embodiment
 * 7) etc
 * 8) Further references


 * It may also be worth considering whether topics such as Embodiment in Feminist Theory should be a part of the Embodiment in Anthropology article, or whether they deserve their own separate articles. Almost none of the writers referenced would refer to themselves as anthropologists, so it seems a little strange to put their work primarily in an article called Embodiment *in Anthropology*?

The rest is great! I'm looking forward to linking to your article on Embodiment in my article on Phenomenology.