User:Willraschkowan/Floating man/SamiraYoussef1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alexb888, Ffaa88, Tim1113, Reagy64

Link to draft you're reviewing


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Willraschkowan/Floating_man?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Floating man
 * Floating man

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: (No lead)

There is no lead in the beginning of the article, they made some adjustments to the text.

It does not have introductory sentence they dive into the topic right away.

Content:

Although the information that was provided in the section background was good, it seems to have been plagiarized.

Yes, it is up to date.

All of the work should be looked over and make sure that it is being said in different ways not not just copy pasted.

They mentioned Descartes in their article, which has relevance and they explore his thoughts briefly.

Tone and Balance:

No they are not being biase, as they show Descartes point of view the critic of Iban Sina's argument.

No the article was pretty neutral

The sections Floating man and Descartes's Cogito and Criticism lacked some depth. They made me wonder.

No the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References:

It is backed up but it is plagiarized.

Yes but a little too well, it says the exact same thing.

They do reflected the available literature on the topic.

The sources are from 2013, which is not very long ago. Therefor I would say that they are current.

The article includes the opinions of some historically individuals when possible.

(They had to use the first book)

Organization:

It is easy to read, clear, but is not their words

No it is seems to all be grammatically correct.

It is well organized and broken down into sections.

Images and Media:

No images were included

Overall impressions:

The contact added was overall all relevant but it was information that was not theirs. They must go over it and reword everything, and explain the concept properly.

The strength of the content added was good.

It can be improved by looking it over and changing the formulation of certain things.