User:Shirleywang97/sandbox

Peer Review
The article is as a whole, neutral, but with direct reliance on quotes from the source without explanation. Many, if not all of the viewpoints in the reception section are underrepresented and lack detail. If we could elaborate on each viewpoint, without using direct quotations from the source material, it would make them easier to understand, as the many quotations in close proximity with each other in the short section make it difficult to differentiate between each viewpoint. I also propose to add a new section on the rebuttals Sartre has for other philosophical critiques of Existentialism in this work. While the information summary provided of Existentialism and Humanism is accurate, it is also difficult to interpret the application of Existentialist ideals. Therefore, I believe a section on rebuttals of other philosophical critiques will help readers better understand the ideals of Existentialism in the context of those of other philosophies. Furthermore, the closing statement of the summary, "existentialism, as it is a philosophy of action and one's defining oneself, is optimistic and liberating" also requires further elaboration. How does simply being a philosophy of self-determination make it optimistic? The juxtaposition of the existentialist's despair with the philosophy's statement of optimism without explanation seems hypocritical. In defining the philosophy as well, the sudden interjection of atheism in the dialogue seems unwarranted. Therefore, I propose the addition of a segment on the existentialist's lack of belief in God as a basis for further conclusions.Shirleywang97 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)