User:Ewooten

References for Addressing general strengths and weaknesses of an article (from Training).
In general, the best Wikipedia articles have five elements:
 * A lead section that is easy to understand
 * Not bogged down in info
 * Shows good grasp
 * Ask yourself:
 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?
 * Is anything missing?
 * Is anything redundant?
 * A clear structure
 * sections organized well, in a sensible order?
 * Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Balanced coverage
 * 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?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?
 * Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Neutral content
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article (you should not)
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?
 * Does the article make claims on 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.
 * Reliable sources
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source
 * 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.
 * 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!

Leave Message on Student's Talk Page

Consider:
 * 1) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
 * 2) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
 * 3) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
 * 4) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

Hypothetical imperative (Rough Draft: Edits in Brackets)
A hypothetical imperative (German: hypothetischer Imperativ), is originally introduced in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant. [It is first mentioned in Section II of Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals, It a type of imperative, which Kant defines as the formula of the command of reason that represents an objective principle "in so far as it is necessitating for a will". In other words, imperatives act as the empirical formulas for knowing and enacting with reason. This imperative acts as the opposite of the Categorical imperative.]

Overview[edit | edit source]
[Hypothetical imperatives tell us how to act in order to achieve a specific goal,and the commandment of reason applies only conditionally, e.g. I must study to get a degree. These sort of actions are capable of producing good, but they are incentivized by specific purposes. Actions done by Hypothetical Imperatives are done very often; whenever one commits to perform an action in order to achieve something they desire, one has utilized this imperative to act with reason. ]

[In Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals , ] Kant divides hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories: the rules of skill and the counsels of prudence.

Rules of Skill

The rules of skill are conditional and are specific to each and every person to which the skill is mandated by. [These are particular ends that we assign ourselves, and they provide a framework to understand how our ends can be achieved. Kant's definition provides that there are a countless number of personal ends that can exist because each human being has their unique perspectives, desires, circumstances, and intended methods to reach their ends. However, Kant also claims that there is at least one end that is universally sought after, and he determines that to be happiness. ]

Counsels of Prudence

The counsels of prudence (or rules of prudence) are attained a priori (unlike the rules of skill which are attained via experience, or a posteriori) and have universal goals such as happiness. [ Counsels of prudence are actions committed for the overall sake of good will for the individual, and with the best intentions. This assumes, then, that actions done with the best intentions are using the hypothetical imperative to discern and make decisions that are "most moral good". ] Thus, almost any moral "rule" about how to act is hypothetical, because it assumes that your goal is to be moral, or to be happy, or to please God, etc.

Exceptions and Limitations

[ The general limitation of the Hypothetical imperative is its potential ambiguity in its means, and its susceptibility to be misused for corrupted ends instead. Hypothetical imperatives also can only be enacted upon if there is a personal investment in the action done and the ends produced. If one does not find personal benefit or incentive to conduct an action off a certain mean, then they are not obligated to do so. In other words, hypothetical imperatives invoke commands though "ought to do's", and their emphasis is more on individual personal desires. ] The only non-hypothetical imperatives are ones which tell you to do something no matter who you are or what you want, because the thing is good in itself.[ These types of imperatives belong to the category of Categorical imperative. ]

See also[edit | edit source]

 * Akrasia
 * Categorical imperative

References[edit | edit source]

 * Immanuel Kant (1785), Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, 4:413, 4:416.
 * Immanuel Kant (1788), Critique of Practical Reason, Part 1, Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 1: Definition.

External links[edit | edit source]

 * Hypothetical Imperatives
 * Happiness
 * a priori
 * a posteriori