User:EditsByDave/Criticism of postmodernism/Bugcruncher Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EditsByDave


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Criticism of postmodernism

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

I thin that the lead was as straightforward (at least as straightforward as a definition of postmodernism can be). I like that you added the bit about postmodernism rejecting enlightenment rationality. I also think adding the different fields that stem from postmodern thought was good as well. The article mentions things like post modern art, but you preface the whole piece by mentioning those ideas.

Content/Tone

The content is all relevant. I think that the tone is very neutral. There is no stance being taken, but rather presenting some of the issues and discussions regarding postmodernism. I like the part added about much of the criticism of its lack of stable definition or meaning. I think that the added parts go well with the Noam Chomsky criticism. I also appreciate that you include the viewpoint of someone "friendly to postmodernism" so as not to make the article one sided. The point by Kaya Yilmaz saying postmodernism being difficult to define as being on brand I think is helpful. While I feel I only slightly understand postmodernism, I think that the additions help me get a good feel for some of the central criticisms/ responses to those criticisms.

Organization

I think that the writing is very concise. I am not going to lie, I couldn't follow some of the topics in the article, but overall the writing matches the piece. I am not sure how much would be appropriate to simplify an article about criticisms of postmodernism, but I think the writing was pretty straightforward and helped me understand the article as a whole.

Sources

I think all the sources are very fitting. There is just some sort of error showing up at the bottom regarding the dates of the sources. I am not sure if it is something that would go away on the front side of a wikipedia article so I am unsure if it is that big of a deal.