User:Rpowers2/Experience machine/Ghorsefield Peer Review

Peer Review Reponse

 * The "Additionally" section needs more information/context.
 * I will add a sentence explaining that we are no longer being taught by Nozick himself, however this is not a full fledged research essay where I am expected to write multiple context sentences while including new information.


 * The "Arguments Against Hedonism" Section should be cut.
 * Simply, I disagree. Part of the reason why I chose the article and topic was due to it's lack of arguments against hedonism. This is fundamental to the thought experiment, and is mentioned briefly within the summary that had already been written. I would hope that a "Hedonism" article utilizes the Experience Machine as an argument against as well, however it is not out of place within this article.
 * Citations are messed up.
 * Fully agree, I still have no clue how to make footnotes work. I will keep trying to figure that out.
 * Add links to other Wikipedia articles.
 * Will do.

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Rpowers2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rpowers2/sandbox; This is the only content related to The Experience Machine that I was able to find by this user.
 * The draft by this user has already been added to the "mainspace" before peer review.

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?

Lead evaluation
''There does not seem to be a lead included within the draft developed, probably because it is an expansion of a published article. Therefore, none of the observations highlighted in the above questions will apply to this review.''

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?

Content evaluation
''The content added is largely relevant, however the "Additionally" section presents quotes from other authors but does not expand on how they are directly related to the topic and leaves out the importance of these supporting ideas. This means that there is either missing information in the "Additionally" section, or the content does not belong and should be removed. The "Argument against Hedonism" section, seems like it should belong to the hedonism article and not the Experience Machine Article. The article neither deals with an equity gap in Wikipedia, nor does it address a historically under-represented topic.''

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
''The tone of the added content is consistently neutral, presenting elements of the thought experiment as facts and lacking a voice of opinion. The content added is distinctly just a representation of the thought experiment at hand without any language that would introduce bias. No view points are over or under-represented. There is no attempt at persuasion for the reader other than the original argument made by Nozick which was not written by the author(s) of the article.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
''Each element of new content has a citation, though, especially for the "Reasons not to plug in" section, the Nozick source is in the bibliography and should be cited with the appropriate inline citations (with a supercript number [1]) method. I think everything in your References List actually belongs in a Bibliography where the citations for each element would be of the superscript form and not the parenthetical citation form. The sources are contemporary works, being published at least 25 years after the publication of the document containing the topic. While they reflect available literature, they were drawn from a single repository (philpapers.org). The authors cited are largely un-marginalized, though there is a single author that is of asian descent. In the content added, only one link is available. This link redirects to a .pdf of the paper by Bramble. There are no other links in the content either internal to Wikipedia, or external.''

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?

Organization evaluation
''The content is presented in short, declarative, clear sentences that uses language that is commonly understandable by most English speakers. No grammatical or spelling errors were encountered. The content is organized as well as it can be for the content added.''

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?

Images and media evaluation
''N/A. No images or media were added by the user.''

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A.The user is expanding on an existing article and not creating a new article.

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?

Overall evaluation
''The content added has only marginally improved the overall quality of the article and made the article equally more complete. The strength of the content added lies in the small expansion of Nozick's justification for his argument as well as keeping the language of the additions quite simple. It presents additional characteristics of Nozick's Experience Machine, but does not make an effort to make all of those characteristics introduced, relatable to the topic. As a philosophy student, I know what the purpose for adding the content was, but for the lay person, finding the connection between the new sections and Nozick's argument may be lost, in which case, the new content was would not be helpful.''

Tips for improvement:


 * Expand search of external sources.
 * Relate direct quotes back to the topic, or paraphrase ideas from sources to avoid using direct quotes.
 * Cite sources appropriately. If its in the bibliography, give it a [#] citation.
 * Add links to other Wikipedia pages. Part of the point here is to help create a web of knowledge where a user can see how one idea/concept is related to another
 * The content added needs more meat on its bones. Keep adding to it.
 * The argument against hedonism section needs inline citations, and seems like it does not belong in this article. I think it would serve better added within the hedonism article that was then internally linked to the Experience Machine article.