User:Braelynn2000/Philosopher kings/Emma Adriana Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Braeylnn2000


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Braelynn2000/Philosopher_kings?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Philosopher king

Evaluate the drafted changes
lead – I would add a quick update to the lead to include your addition of epistocracy. I'd also add a concise sentence summarizing the article. The lead is almost too short, but I understand that it's length reflects the length of the article. It's a small article for sure, but the lead could use 1-2 more sentences.

Content added - yes! The content added is extremely relevant. Reading the article with the addition of epistocracy gives context to the concept of "philosopher kings," and how some of them wished to, or did, operate. All content is up to date, relevant, and it does not deal with a content gap.

Tone and balance - most of the content added is neutral, but there is a sentence i would tweak. I included it already in your talk page because I was confused about the format of this peer review, so you might've already seen it. In case you haven't, here's my critique again: There is only one sentence I would nitpick: "One should be cautious to equate the concept of the philosopher king with epistocracy because many epistocrats are uncomfortable with the idea of one philosopher king or a small group of philosopher kings being the ultimate source of authority; some prefer a very large and diverse epistocratic polity." In this sentence, you use normative language, encouraging the reader to "be cautious." I think that this sentence is important, because it establishes the difference between some philosopher kings and epistocrats. Perhaps reword the structure here, and mention only the tension between epistocrats and philosopher kings. I would also take away the "some prefer" aspect unless you can reference the specific epistocrats who "prefer a large and diverse epistocratic polity."

Sources and references - I would find some more sources. You've only got one! Maybe do a database search to find other works written about philosopher kings/epistocracies, maybe even a search into historical philosophical topics and how they were influenced by the idea of philosopher kings... just a thought. Maybe you could take this article into a more modern perspective; are there current "philosopher kings?" I am thinking specifically of the start of the 20th century, when philosophers were trying to find a place for philosophy in the burgeoning world of science. Do philosopher kings have any relevancy here? However, the source you do have is reliable, current, and you properly cite the information.

Organization - the content added is well-organized, and it makes sense for the flow of the article you're editing. It is clear and easy to read; I would only change the content related to your tone, as mentioned above.

Images and media - there is only one image attached to the article, which makes sense again because the article is so short. I'm not sure if there are images that would strengthen the article, so I guess that's up to you.

Overall impressions - your addition definitely improves the article! It contextualizes an important piece of the discussion on philosopher kings. I think there could be more to talk about in regard to Plato's republic – Socrates' idea for his perfect republic sounds similar to some versions of epistocracies that you reference. ~ Jcalle00

Lead: I think that the lead has been updated and accurately reflects the content you have added. Even though you did add another paragraph of information I think it would be unwise to add the concept of epistocracy to the lead. Your first sentence does a very clear and good job at describing what it is you will be talking about without giving too much away. I do think you should add a sentence to your intro for each section you talk about tho. Even tho the lead is short I understand why the article is short and I don’t think you should add more because it’s pointless to have more words if they are not necessary. I think the lead is very concise and it does the job that it needs it to do.

Content: The content added is really relevant to the topic and the information added to the original article is all up to date and relevant. The new information that was added about epistocracy really helped to clarify some of the confusion that I had early on in the article. I definitely think there is more information that could be added in terms of examples of philosopher-kings but for the most part, it seems like you hit all the points. The article talks about philosophy which is definitely something that is a little easiest to write about because there is not a clear answer.

Tone and Balance: The content is not persuasive in any way, it’s more informative if anything. There are no claims in my opinion that are more leaned one side or the other. You use the word  “cautious” but I think it’s an accurate way to warn the reader to not get confused with the concept you talk about and epistocatic polity because there is a way to get slightly confused by the two. The general concept of the article is not overrepresented in the sense that he repeats the same thing over and over again but the only thing is I think you are missing some more information when it comes to the examples.

Sources and References: You do need more sources, you only have one source and that’s definitely not enough even tho your source is a reliable source that comes from a recognized journal. There is a database specifically for philosophy that you should check out in the UAlbany database. I also think this article focuses too much on the prime years of philosophy so it lacks current sources. You also properly cited the information which is good but you should expand your search of journals and sources in order to better add to your article.

Organization: All of the content added is well written the way the article was organized makes sense. It flows really well and it makes sense with the topic of your article.

Images and Media: You only have one image but it makes sense for the length of your article.

Overall Impressions : You did an amazing job with your additions, I really think that your additions improve the article significantly. As I mentioned above you could add more when it comes to the examples but overall you did a good job with explaining your idea and executing it. ~