User:Monikolov/Group consciousness (political science)/Matthew.meyers5 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Monikolov


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Monikolov/Group consciousness (political science)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Group consciousness (political science)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Monique, This is a really great article so far! You are starting to work on a page that is not particularly strong yet, and you are adding more to it based on what seems to be entirely outside knowledge. I would say that everything you have added so far is really great, but I think overall you could do more to add structure to the page. As we learned in our training, the best articles have lead sections that summarize the information, and then the rest of the information is broken down into specific sections. Right now, those two parts of the article are sort of mixed. I would try to organize the various thoughts on Group Consciousness into different sections and choose a few that you think you would like to expand upon. For example, I think the first paragraph (the one you didn't write) could function as an overview section or be repurposed into most of a lead section. The next paragraph adds more details. It could either be its own section or it could be part of the overall explanation of what group consciousness is, combining with the first paragraph. The last two paragraphs discuss different philosophical frameworks and experts' takes on it. I think this could be a really good section on its own and would benefit from the perspectives of more than just List and Schwitzgebel.

In terms of specific sentences and phrases, I think that your contributions are very well written. In your sandbox draft, you wrote "It is important to note..." which I think is probably fine, but could be construed as biased by saying unequivocally that something is a key distinction, when that may actually be more up in the air. You took out this line when you moved from the sandbox draft to the main article. I don't know if this was purposeful or not, but either way I would recommend keeping it that way. Other than that there are few sentences that sound a little bit like they are at the expository portion of an analytical essay rather than a reference article, especially in the last two paragraphs; however, I do not feel strongly about this and would only recommend that you take a second look and make your own judgement.

Your sources seem very good as they are published in reputable journals. Since you only cited two, I would recommend adding a few more. Due to the nature of the topic, it is probably best that you choose similar sources, although if you see an opportunitie to diversify while maintaining reputability and neutrality I would definitely say to take it.

Overall, I think the contributions you have made so far are great. The topic seems really interesting and it was cool to read more about it. My suggestions are largely nitpicks and suggestions on what is the best way to expand your article from where it is now. Let me know if you have any questions and I'm happy to answer them or clarify anything. Good luck with the rest of your writing!