User:Dhernandez98/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Hedonism


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article's lead mentions negative utilitarianism without giving it a proper introduction. It needs some sort of transition in talking about negative utilitarianism or an edit to mention that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. The last paragraph of the lead needs some revision and grammatical fixes. There are also a bunch of subsections dedicated to religions that just seem out of place to me. Some of them do not elaborate enough on the relevance of each of them in connection to hedonism. There could also surely be some more subsections added to the "Contemporary approaches" section of the article. More criticisms could be added to it as well. There is some mentioning in the Talk section of non-neutrality in the article, so that could be evaluated and edited as well. This article was rated a C and contained a high rated importance.


 * Sources
 * Heathwood, Chris. “Desire Satisfactionism and Hedonism.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, vol. 128, no. 3, 2006, pp. 539–563. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4321735. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Epiphenomenalism


 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead seems like a good introduction to the topic that doesn't need much revision. My main contribution would be to add a section for a philosopher named Jaegwon Kim. He is a modern philosopher who endorses a form of epiphenomenalism and I definitely feel like he deserves his own section on the topic. There some talk on the talk page that says some information is misleading on the subject. It could use some dedicated research on the topics of confusion such as whether epiphenomenalism is a current theory of knowledge. The page is rated a C of mid-importance.


 * Sources
 * Sollberger, Michael. “Commentary on Jaegwon Kim, ‘Laws, Causation, and Explanation in the Special Sciences.’” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, vol. 27, no. 3/4, 2005, pp. 339–344. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23333895. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Philosophy of Happiness


 * Article Evaluation
 * The article mentions the concept of luck but it does not seem to be a theme mentioned throughout the description of the Philosophy of Happiness. The first sentence seems well written to me, but the following needs some adjustments tailored to the rest of the information presented in the article.
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic for the most part. Some sections are questionable such as just simply stating in one section that Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz saw happiness as a fundamental ethical category. His mentioning seems largely irrelevant given that almost all philosophers would see this claim. The philosophers mentioned ends at 2007 so there may also be some new philosophers that might be worth adding to the article.
 * The article is neutral and simply presents the facts it discusses. There is a lack of opinion in all the sections. However, the concept of "hedonism" is only mentioned once in the entire article, and is clearly an important theory in the philosophy of happiness. I believe that it should receive a more thorough mentioning.
 * Some sections have no cited sources at all. The "scientism" section has no citations at all, as well as the "cultures not seeking to maximize happiness" section. Added and edited citations are definitely needed.
 * The article has grammatical and spelling errors. The word maximize is written as maximise, and I'm fairly certain that this is not an alternative spelling, but I would need to research that more. Some sentences need restructuring.
 * There are some images presented of philosophers, but surely more can be added to make certain points more apparent. One picture has the heads of a couple of philosophers, but one of the heads wasn't mentioned in the section where the picture is located. More work on the media and images is needed.
 * One question addresses how a paragraph is well written but lacks certain information, so the person who commented asked if someone who's well versed could add to that section. One person who commented insists that a section related to hedonism is incorrect and needs revision. Another person removed a section. And someone else just commented what they changed. There are only 4 comments on the talk page to date.
 * There are several strengths with the article. For the most part, it is well written, concise, and clear. But there are some factual changes that need to be made. One person's comment on the talk page wasn't addressed. The lead needs to be more tailored to the sections that follow. Certain sections are vague and need to be added on. Some literally only have one or two sentences. It's currently organized by mostly philosopher and date. But this does not seem to me to be the most effective way to organize this information. Although it would be a big project, I feel the article should be organized more by branch or theory of the Philosophy of Happiness. The article is certainly incomplete and underdeveloped.
 * This article was rated a C and was described as possessing a low level of importance.


 * Sources
 * Chandler, Hugh S. “Hedonism.” American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 12, no. 3, 1975, pp. 223–233. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20009578. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.