User:MathisBitton/The Public and its Problems/AnnaRO2021 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MathisBitton


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MathisBitton/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists
 * The Public and its Problems
 * The Public and its Problems

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Mathis,

First of all, I really apologize for the late feedback. As I wrote in the e-mail, I had to rearrange with our professor who I was to give feedback after our class mate dropped the course and, also, there has been a lot of challenges/things I had to attend to in my personal life these past week - which is quite bad timing this time of the semester.

That said, let me get to the point:

Let me begin my thanking you for a great reading experience and that you have contributed to making Dewey's thinking more accessible for the larger public.

I must admit, that I am still a bit in doubt about what exact contributions you have made - and if you have moved your writings out of your sandbox and into the current version of the article. Therefore, my review will mainly focus on your sandbox version.

Overall impression, sections & organizing

There's not much to say besides that I find your choice of sections is well chosen and easy to follow. The fact that you zoom in tho the parts of the book is great for the reader who wants to find out more specific information. Furthermore, it is great that your have used a lot of different sources making the content even more reliable.

Furthermore, the content of each section is great, to the point, and gives the reader what she would expect of a Wikipedia article about a classic philosophical publishing like The Public and its Problems.

I especially like the 'Background' and the 'Repetition and Influence' section since it contains much information including information about the contemporary critiques when the book was published. Compared to information about the key arguments of Dewey's work this type of information is much more demanding for someone to get a general view over without spending too much time searching the internet. So, that' a great force of your addition to the article. Additionally, a strength is that the article points to contemporary traditions in which the book is used. This could maybe elaborated a bit on - even though one would make sure that the article does not 'depart' too much from the main point of the article.

Sources & references

I really appreciate that you have linked so much to other Wiki articles. by that you make sure that the article is well incorporated into the 'Wiki universe' and thereby make it 'live' and generate knowledge to the global public. (Maybe you could link prof. Landemores bio article too in order to strengthen the representation of female thinkers in the Wiki universe which at the moment is embarrassingly small).

Furthermore, I find that the amount of references to sources is great and appropriate. This heightens the 'non-biased-ness' and reliability which is another great strength since the statements and points in the article is well backed.

Finally, it is great that you actually quote the book during the article. (Maybe you should mention if the italicization in the quotes are originally found in Dewey's book or if it is your emphasis).

Language & tone

I find that you have a well-balanced and neutral tone. It is easy to understand for a non-native English speaker as me. The language has a nice flow and I finde it very quite enjoyable to read the text.

I do not get the impression that the article tries to persuade me about anything - not event the sections about the about the reception of the book. As an example, expressions like 'on the other hand' signals this neutrality to the reader and is also a good example of what I find makes a good flow.

In one of our wiki trainings we learned that headlines should only begin with capital letter in the first word. Make sure to go and correct this in the article.

Additionally, make sure to decide on whether you write concepts such as mythology and state by either "X" or 'X'. I mostly find the 'X' in the lead section which you mentioned was not your writing though.

Another thing to consider would be to break up some of the longer sentences. This is just my personal preferences since I feel this heightens the general comprehensiveness. I do not remember if Wikipedia has general guidelines about this.

I hope that you can use my comments. Also, as you might remember, I am a non-native English speaker so bear over with any non elegant formulations. Feel free to reach out if you would like me to elaborate or explain anything.

I wish you all the best with the end of the semester and good luck with finishing up on the Wikipedia article.

All the best,

Anna