User:Hjlipsky/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
 * Subjectivity


 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead section seems the strongest as it does the best job of explaining the topic in an understandable way; however, it could use some tailoring. First and foremost, the intro sentence is a little bit confusing and could start with the simple statement that it is complicated and end with the things it relates to. I like that the definitions are easily identifiable; however, they could use some further explaining. The content is short and confusing as almost nothing is explained in depth. Because subjectivity is such a loose concept, it might not need too much explanation, but I feel like philosophy in general needs to be simplified to be accessible. There is also not much to work with here at all. There are ties to some philosophers, but I feel like there should be more or at least a link to a list of postmodern thinkers.  The article does seem balanced in tone, especially because its counterpart, objectivity, has its own article. It also might just seem balanced because there is so little, to begin with.  The sources are either not easily accessible or look questionable. The fifth source (by Slavoj Žižek), specifically, does not seem like it fits any of the descriptions of sources we have been told to use.  The writing is confusing and the organization is minimal due to the article being a start-class. Within sections, there is not much flow from one topic to another either.  There are no images.  The talk page is also fairly bare. There is some discussion calling for additional sources and additional references to certain schools of philosophy, but what concerns me the most is where two contrasting perspectives are mentioned. It is suggested that experts from those perspectives should have a conversation before editing this page or else an edit war might occur, but this was said in 2015, so it might be time for that to be ignored in order for the article to improve sooner than later.  This article is way underdeveloped on account of it being start-class, and I think it would be really easy to improve it.


 * Sources
 * Giddy, Patrick. “Objectivity and Subjectivity: An Argument for Rethinking the Philosophy Syllabus.” South African journal of philosophy 28.4 (2009): 359–376. Web.

Option 2

 * Article title
 * All men are created equal


 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead is concise and to the point. However, I think it says too much about the history of the phrase and too little about the meaning and controversy behind it. Where the lead describes some specific history, it would be enough to say that the phrase came from collaboration but is accredited to Thomas Jefferson. However, the lead says nothing about the criticism that the phrase has and continues to receive.  The content of the article is mostly good. The history section is comparatively quite extensive each point of history that built up to this addition to the Declaration of Independence is well defined. The other sections are quite sparse. The article could also use a section about the meanings that the phrase has taken on or at least better incorporate that into the controversy section. The problem is that equality means something different to different people, so it would be good to define those differences and outline the past conversations well.   The article is well balanced in tone. It seems to be written from a fairly objective historical standpoint, and the history and controversy sections balance each other out well.  The sources that are there seem to be good because they are largely the different historical documents attached to the phrase, but there is a lack of scholarly articles. Furthermore, many statements in the article do not have attached citations.  The organization could be improved. The writing seems fine and straightforward as historical documents go, but the sections seem awkwardly placed. The section on slavery seems like it should be part of the section on criticism because it discusses a specific kind of criticism. The sections about origin and legacy seem like they should go in one section about history, but at the very least those sections seem like they should go right next to each other.  There are no images in this article.  For a C-rated article that is a part of three different WikiProjects, the talk page is not all that up to date. The last addition to the talk page was made in 2018 as were the last edits to the article baring a single edit made this month. The conversation on the talk page is mostly old or solved problems regarding who’s viewpoints should be included and how.  The article has a strong history of the phrase it focuses on, but it could use more discussion of different philosophical views of it. Overall, the article is not bad, but could definitely use some work.


 * Sources
 * Joseph Margolis. “‘That All Men Are Created Equal.’” The Journal of Philosophy 52.13 (1955): 337–346. Web.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Abandonment (existentialism)


 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead is confusing. This is possibly due to the philosophical nature of the topic, but my biggest criticism for the lead is that I was confused about the topic after reading it. From guessing what the lead meant, I ended up with a very different understanding after the lead than I had after the whole article. The content confused me. I think the biggest distinction that was missing or perhaps was present but not clear enough was the difference and/or relationship between abandonment, atheism, and existentialism. Under the section titled relationship with atheism, it seemed like atheism was the only thing being discussed, not abandonment.
 * The tone of the article seemed neutral, but the problem was that the arguments were not well outlined as completely separate views. It seemed that the author of the article was trying to frame the content from differing points of view at different parts to get a balance, but instead of showing balance and different arguments, the article just became a bit messy and confusing. The sources either had links that did not work or were not scholarly articles. There were also very few sources. However, there were also too many quotes as there were two different block quotes used.  The writing was confusing and the organization was a bit lacking. The sections themselves ought to be reordered because the section on relevant thinkers should come directly after a discussion of a group of relevant thinkers in the origin section instead of having a section on atheism between the two.  The talk page is almost completely bare as it has only one entry. The article is C-rated in the WikiProject philosophy and has only had three edits total.  Overall, this article needs a lot of work and revising in order to be comprehensible.


 * Sources
 * Costello, Peter. “Heidegger and Scripture: The Calling of Thinking in Our Abandonment.” Open Theology 3.1 (2017): 321–337. Web.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources