User:Christopher H. Moller/Will (philosophy)/Dustin Dyke Peer Review

I am Reviewing Christopher H. Moller's article improvement. Here is a link to the draft: User:Christopher H. Moller/sandbox
The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content, however, the Lead seems to be vague enough to encapsulate much of what Christopher is purposing to add. The content added to the topic is entirely relevant. One worry might be that, although relevant, the content is too expansive and offers more detail than is necessary for a Wikipedea article. The content is presented in a mostly neutral way. Christopher does a good job at supplementing controversial viewpoints of Will with opposing viewpoints, such as, "There are some objections posited against Kant's view. For instance, in Kohl's essay...". It may be argued that some of the viewpoints are overrepresented in that Christopher spends a lot of attention on hashing out particular nuances of some of the philosophers more than the others that he mentions. One particular issue that is related to the tone and balance but tightly connected to the sources and references is the use of primary sources.

It appears that Christopher has included numerous primary sources in support of the content proposed that raises concerns about whether it is original work. Wikipedea has noted that added content should be a statement about what experts believe is true in regards to a given topic. The fact that the primary sources are being cited also raises concerns for whether the sources are current. It should also be noted that the links within the citations of Kant (the pdf links) do not lead to anything. With that said, the secondary sources that Christopher has cited are very good sources and are a great feature of his proposal. The content is very well-written. Christopher writes in a clear and concise fashion. I personally didn't come across grammatical or spelling errors that I could make suggestions on, although it should be noted that my grammar is sub-par. The content is well-organized, however, perhaps Hegel could get his own section rather than being within Kant's section.

Overall Christopher's draft is very well-written and offers an in depth commentary on the various thoughts held by philosophers on the topic of Will in philosophy. The largest criticism that I can draw on his draft is that it is in fact so in depth. Perhaps rounding off some of the ideas or directing the reader to an alternative place that details the nuances of a particular aspect of one's theory. Some of the content might even be sufficient to form its own article on Wikipedia.

Dustin Dyke (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Dustin Dyke