User:Kcub27/Aristippus/Coolguy500 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kcub27


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kcub27/Aristippus?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Aristippus

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * Intro:
 * Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes! Amazing additions to the intro! your language is neutral throughout, and I think that the information you added was important and made the intro easier to understand.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes! I think that your intro is very thorough and sets up the rest of the article very well.
 * Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, No, No! I really like the intro.
 * Article Structure:
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Yes and no! The structure of the article makes sense the way you structured it as intro, life, philosophy, and works. I also like the table and that you moved the hedonism table to the philosophy section.
 * Coverage Balance:
 * 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? Yes, no, no. I think that all the sections are very thorough and neutral in language. The Life section is really good and I think your contributions make the piece more thorough, but it seems you do not cite that often. The other body sections are good and your contributions are neutral in language, but it still seems as though you do not cite that often in the article.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes and no. However, I wonder if there are more literature you can cite throughout the article?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it does not.
 * Content Neutrality:
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? No.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? No.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? No.
 * Sources:
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The sources you have so far are good. I think that you need to cite more throughout the article. The two sources you have listed seem like good sources to have, but are there other sources you can cite?
 * 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. Yes, but I wonder if you can find another source to spread out the references a bit.
 * 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! It just seems as though you need to go through and add more sources.
 * Sources:
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The sources you have so far are good. I think that you need to cite more throughout the article. The two sources you have listed seem like good sources to have, but are there other sources you can cite?
 * 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. Yes, but I wonder if you can find another source to spread out the references a bit.
 * 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! It just seems as though you need to go through and add more sources.