User:Kim Brunelle/Floating man/Amelia Marcellus Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Braydenafournier, Kim Brunelle, and ReidWalker


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kim_Brunelle/Floating_man&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no&veaction=edit


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Floating man

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead for this article has seemingly not been updated, as we find no “introductory paragraph” that concisely and roughly breaks down the concept of the floating man and prepares us to dive deeper into the topic. Granted, there is an addition of the etymologic origin of “floating man”, but no simple description of what the actual thought experiment is.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Not really. The content directly dives in to explaining Ahmed and Sina’s points of view, without really taking the time to explain the basis of what the thought experiment is. Basically, we jump straight to talking about what the experiment means instead of clearly defining what it is. Yes, some of it can be deduced through Ahmed’s quotes that you guys found, but for someone who has never heard of thought experiments before, it might not be obvious enough.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not really, but to be fair, we don’t know if some of what has been added is meant to be the lead or not.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

To summarize, we are not sure if the some (or all) of the added content is meant to be the lead of the article or not, but if it is, we find that it is very wordy and does not include a simple 2-3 sentence explanation of the basic principles of the floating man thought experiment before diving into the “argumentative” or “deduction” “reflection” parts of the added content. Check for run-on sentences and having clear sentence structures.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Although the content added is relevant, as it discusses the floating man, some of it does seem quite repetitious. The section in which you quote Ahmed Alwishah is unnecessary, as it already explains within the actual article the premise of the argument in Ibn Sina’s words. (No vision, floating in air/vacuum, etc).

The content added is up to date, which is good (2013). Additionally, perhaps you could add information pertaining to the criticism of this argument.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The content you added is neutral as you simply stated the ideologies of other individuals in a neutral tone. There are no heavily biased claims, as the opinions you expressed where simply expressed as people's opinions, not facts and the viewpoints expressed are pretty well balanced. The content added also does not persuade the reader in any way or another, as mentioned previously, it is neutral and simply states the interpretation of others and just gives the reader the information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The source used couldn’t access the document/ article you chose. There are definitely better sources like the books used in class that will help guide the writers to understand and edit the article. By looking at the source's website ( not the pages but just the cover page) the article seemed to reflect the topic well. It also seems like it had an in-depth analysis ( by looking at the summary ) that would help you complete different aspects of the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

There has been a decent amount of content added. (although not clear which part of the work should be added to which section of the article)

However, almost all of it of it seems to be quoted text–either from Ahmed Alwishah or from Ibn Sina himself. There is no paragraph included where the thought experiment is clearly laid out and explained in detail from the editors’ own understanding of the thought experiment and not someone else’s. This, i think, would benefit the article.

The content added in itself could definitely have some parts shaven off to make it neater and more concise. There is a lot of repetition and paraphrasing, that could potentially be avoided


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I find that some of the text is hard to read because the indirectly quoted parts from Ahmed Alwishah contain lots of undefined pronouns, which make it difficult for the reader to try to guess who you are talking about (Ahmed or the floating man?)

“Additionally, according to Ahmed Alwishah, he considers whether he affirms his existence. Because of this, he will claim his presence without any hesitation, but he will not also establish the existence of his limb extremities, internal organs, heart, or anything else that is not a part of him. Instead, he will declare that his essence exists without claiming that it is long, wide, or profound”

Who considers? Is the “he” pronoun always referring to the floating man? A bit of a run-on sentence, with a slightly awkward construction, that I find hard to understand. Maybe try a neater reintegration of the quote? If possible?


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The section that the content added should belong to was not specified in this case, so it would be helpful to break up your additions according to which part of said additions goes into which section of the article. If you decided to reorganize the sections of your article, it would also be helpful to mention what you want the new organization to be and to also separate your additions according to your “new” organization.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

This article did not include images of any kind. We do not know if this is because no relevant images to this topic were found, or if it is because the team had not had the time to look for said images. If it is the latter, it would be a nice touch to find and add images to help wiki users visualise the thought experiment.





Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the information they have added has improved the overall quality of the article. The information gives a more well rounded look at Ibn Sina’s understanding of the floating man problem, while the current article simply states his thoughts on the subject. They also add insight from Ahmed Ahwishah which provides more context to the idea of existence and consciousness.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

I think the strengths of the content added are that it gives slightly more background to the floating man idea and what it’s all about, which is lacking in the actual article. It also provides additional information through the expertise of Ahmed Ahwishah, which provides a different perspective on the topic as the current article only talks about Ibn Sina and René Descartes.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think that the main thing that needs to be improved with the content is the way it all connects. Currently, the content is helpful and relevant to the topic but it lacks the ability to link the two ideas, being Ibn Sina’s and Ahmed Ahwishah’s information, together. We are not aware if the paragraphs are meant to be connected but if so, there should be more explanation as to how they are linked. Even if they are not meant to link together, some more transitional phrases should be used to integrate it into the actual Wikipedia.