User:Hjlipsky/Subjectivity/MTSpencer79 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hjlipsky


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hjlipsky/Subjectivity
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Subjectivity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Organization - Not Applicable

Images and Media - Not Applicable

Lead

The edits made to the lead do reflect the edits made to the content of the article. The writing is concise, relevant and they are not overly detailed. One weakness is that the lead does not include a description of the sociology section of the article.

The lead can be improved by adding a description of the sociology section.

Content

The added content is up-to-date and relevant to the topic of Subjectivity.

The writing is concise, clear, and easy to read. There are some small grammatical improvements that can be made.

I made grammatical suggestions for the following sentences:


 * 1) "The idea of subjectivity is thought to have its philosophical roots in the works of Descartes and Kant though it could *have* also *originated* come from Aristotle's work relating to the soul."
 * 2) "Important thinkers who focused *on the idea of subjectivity* include Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Foucault, Derrida, Nagel, and Satre."

The first sentence is a minor change in wording.

The second sentence is correcting what may have been a typo.

It was a great choice to mention branches of philosophy that subjectivity is pertinent within. This provides strong context for how subjectivity fits into the field of philosophy.

Tone and Balance

The content takes a neutral tone and there is no apparent bias in the writing.

There is nothing that is trying to persuade the reader towards one particular point of view. Since you mentioned various philosophers who wrote on the topic, you did a good job representing the topic with a diverse selection of philosophical thinkers. Subjectivity in itself is the idea that there is not one objective truth. Your use of multiple sources and consistently neutral tone reflects this because it does not sway the reader towards one account of subjectivity but instead provides a nuanced and eclectic body of information.

Sources and References

All of the edits are backed up by a reliable secondary source. The sources used are strong and represent the philosophical literature on the topic. The content used sources that reference a myriad of influential philosophers, which lends to the content's credibility.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the content you added improves the original article and makes it more complete. This is a strong draft that will certainly strengthen this underdeveloped article.

The strengths of the content added are the way it uses the views of many influential philosophers to convey the concept of subjectivism. You did a good job of integrating the most relevant views within the literature into the article.

I think your article can be improved by adding a description of the sociology section to the lead and making the tweaks to grammar that I have indicated.