User:Mattfed/Interactionism (philosophy of mind)/GraceeeK Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Mattfed/Interactionism


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattfed/Interactionism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattfed/Interactionism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)

Lead:

-No lead, (therefore, nothing to correct), didn't have paragraph

-No guiding question

Content:

-The content is relevant to the topic

-The content is added up-to-date

-Content is very superficial, very basic(Needs to elabraote)

-ex, when talking about Princess Elizabeth, they mentioned it but they don't explain it well enough

-Content provides good understanding of topic but requires further depth

Tone and Balance:

-There are moments where content is not neutral, sometimes, yes

Sources and References:

-Sources are good

-However, the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors

-Otherwise, sources are cited correctly.

Organization:

-It is not straight forward, they are using the quotes to explain their ideas

-problem of casual interaction: sentence added to the first paragraph is run-on sentence. (Split up into simpler)

-Content is organized according to previous paragraphs

Images:

-No images added and media

Overall impressions:

-The content has improved the quality of the article, however, if provided more details, it would further the improvement

-Strengths: added relevant information and recent information

- Improved: Develop ideas and explain concepts before adding examples.