User:Coolguy500/Techne/Kcub27 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Coolguy500


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coolguy500/Techne?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Techne

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.)

The Lead Section:


 * Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Partially
 * I like how the lead discusses the definition and the complexity surrounding it
 * I like how you mentioned the difficulty that philosophers had defining the term as well as a modern term that might be similar in use and function
 * Could you better the line regarding practical knowledge, by either providing the definition of practical knowledge and/ or by rephrasing the line to something like "today the modern definition and use of the term practical knowledge is similar to the ancient greek definition of techne"?


 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Partially
 * Once again, I like how the lead discusses the definition and the complexity surrounding it
 * Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * No, yes, no
 * I like how you have removed the in depth portions of the terms complexity, unlike the original article, and have saved them for the body of the article
 * In order to strengthen the lead, like you had stated, could you add a line or two mentioning the three main philosophers, and maybe their key differences (just make sure to not go into too much detail, otherwise the article will have the same problem it currently has)?

Clarity of Article Structure:


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Yes
 * I like how the article starts off with the definition of techne and then discusses the differences each philosopher had in their definition of the term
 * I like the information you have added on each philosopher and their differences, as well as the order in which you have presented each philosopher

Coverage Balance:


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * Yes, no, no
 * I like how the lead is brief and that the philosopher section is in depth and ordered in a way that shows the differences of each of their definitions well
 * While we know there is information about differences in the definition between philosophers, is there information about the change or differences of definitions throughout history, and if so could you add such information/ add a history section to the article if there is enough warranting a section?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Yes, no
 * I like how you have found multiple viewpoints as well as supplied them with multiple sources
 * If there are more "significant" differences of definitions by other philosophers, could you add them to the article?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No
 * I like how you have added an additional philosopher to the article, as well as added more information regarding the other two

Content Neutrality:


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * No
 * The content is neutral
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * No
 * There is no use of un-neutral phrases
 * I like how you have removed the existing un-neutral phrases from the current article
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * No
 * There are no claims on the behalf of unnamed groups or people
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * No
 * There is a balance of varying viewpoints and aspects of the topic

Sources:


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * Yes
 * I like how you added additional reliable sources, for your information about each philosopher
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * No
 * I like how you have added additional sources, that each strengthen/ back the information regarding each philosopher
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * No
 * Your statements are sourced and presented accurately