User:Physicalist/Hempel's Dilemma/Gertrude16 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hempel's dillemna


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Physicalist/Hempel%27s_Dilemma?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hempel's dilemma

Evaluate the drafted changes
1) Class material

I believe the information they added does show that the understood and properly used the class material. They haven't added much, but they added a bit about what physicalism is at the beginning which demonstrates that they understand what physicalism's general ideas are. What they have added does make it easier to understand the article.

2) Improving Article

I think they added the information in a way that helped the article because the original article is quite confusing. I do believe they should add a bit more, which they have said that they are going to add more. They have also reworded what the previous authors have wrote to make the article more coherent.

3) What have they done particularly well?

They have added a better description of what physicalism is and have improved the articles wording to make it more coherent.

4) What could they improve?

In this sentence, "(In physicalism 'natural' means procedural, causally coherent, or all effects have particular causes, regardless of human knowledge [like physics] and interpretation.", they need to add a bracket at the end. I would suggest to continue improving the previous authors work, because it is hard to follow. They could explain the concept of physicalism a little more and make it more clear what the arguments for Hempel's dillemma are. They have also said that they are going to be adding more, which will most likely improve the article even more, but so far the work they have added seems like it is making the article better and using the class material properly. They should also add their sources to the information they are adding.