User:Nootiebeans/Brain in a vat/Alabaw25 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nootiebeans


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Brain in a vat

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

New information was not added to the lead; I don't believe this is to the disadvantage of my peer, because the lead section seems well-developed and not in need of the most attention for editing.

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?

''The information added about Putnam's monkey scenario is relevant to semantic externalism, but I'm not entirely sure that it's necessary to put in this article about the BIV. I don't think it belongs since the concept has already been explained in a brief manner and doesn't really need further elaboration (in this article, at least). I think my peer's idea of adding content about the reconstruction of Putnam's argument would be valuable for this article.''

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 tone of the writing is neutral, lacking bias and persuasive language. The article explains Putnam's theory and its flaws, but my peer's anticipated "Reconstruction of Putnam's Argument" section will bring light on that underrepresented viewpoint.''

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 links work and lead to peer-reviewed articles, which are reliable. They are recent by philosophy standards and are accurately reflected in the article. However, there is one sentence that starts with " This relationship is further defined..." and does not appear to be backed up by a source.''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

''The content is concise and understandable. I think my peer's recommendation of a new section about reconstructing Putnam's argument will improve the organization of the article. There is an error: "... philosopher Hilary Putnam .He attempts..." In this instance, there is a space before the period rather than after. Further, there is a comma splice in the sentence about the monkey scenario. I would recommend rewriting "... by chance, this..." to say "...by chance; however, this does not mean..."''

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

''I think that the image my peer selected is relevant and well-captioned. It enhances understanding by giving an actual visual of a brain in a vat rather than just a drawing, which makes the BIV easier to conceptualize.''

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

''I think the article could really benefit from my peer's recommended "Reconstruction of Putnam's Argument" section. My peer's rewording of some of the content strengthened comprehension of the article, although I do think some of the added information about the monkey scenario is unnecessary for this topic in particular.''